Downfall

The downfall of British judge Constance Briscoe has been long overdue. She claimed to have hauled herself up from adversity to sit on the Bench – a role model for aspiring black lawyers, but was she ever the inspiration she claimed to be? The 57-year-old barrister and part time judge was no stranger to controversy, having claimed to have triumphed over adversity in childhood and successfully sued her mother for libel.

She now contemplates her spectacular fall from grace from a prison cell – sentenced to 16 months for intending to pervert the course of justice. She deceived police investigating the offences committed by former Minister Chris Huhne and his estranged wife, the economist wife Vicky Pryce.

Briscoe’s recent crimes have been well reported, but should it have ever come to this? Fifteen years ago the Bar Council failed to investigate whether she was fit to practice over several very serious allegations, including forging signatures. The astonishing thing was the complainant was Briscoe’s mother whom she sued for libel. Her mother’s allegations are now being investigated.

An Ass

“Perjury strikes at the heart of the criminal justice system”, Mr Justice (Sir David) Maddison said when he jailed three witnesses who had lied in a notorious miscarriage of justice – the Lynette White Inquiry. Unlike Briscoe, Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Learnne Vilday had an excuse – a good one. They had been browbeaten into telling the lies the police demanded of them. Unlike Briscoe the intent to pervert the course of justice was not their’s, but they alone paid the price.

They had no real choice, but to tell the lies they told and once they had told the first batch, they were boxed in. They had little choice but to stick to a monstrous script  – one that they were later sent to jail for sticking to. Unlike Briscoe they had mitigation – plenty of it. The judge, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and even the police that investigated their perjury admitted that they had been bullied. They were subjected to conduct that was in Maddison’s words: “unacceptable in a civilised society”. They were denied a defence by an ass of a law that found this conduct unacceptable, but did not meet the legal standard of duress.

They had perverted the course of justice, but unlike Briscoe only because justice had been so perverted as to force them to commit those crimes against justice. They were then punished for committing the very crimes that they were given no choice but to commit. The law that resulted in their convictions is archaic and unjust. The lawyers and functionaries implementing it must know that In their situation virtually all of us would have done as they did, but it matters not a whit to the law and those charged to uphold it. Where was that same law and its enforcers when these victims of a grave injustice needed protection and support?

Freedom of  Choice

Unlike them, Constance Briscoe freely chose her path to disgrace, but she was treated more leniently than they were. The New Cardiff Three were sent to jail for 18 months – two more than Briscoe who had no excuse. Briscoe was intended to be the star witness against Huhne, but her friendship with Pryce and role in her friend’s revenge almost caused the trial to collapse. Briscoe and Pryce and Huhne – all of whom had privileged lives – had no excuse. The New Cardiff Three really had rotten lives and were vulnerable to the abuse by the criminal justice system that overcame them partly because of the vulnerability to abuse those lives left them open to.

Briscoe claims she overcame serious adversity in her childhood – her family tell a different story. Years after the allegations of her being a fantasist and worse first surfaced, they are finally being investigated seriously. Briscoe may yet face further trials.

Unfit for Purpose

The CPS has had over a quarter of a century to overcome teething problems. But it remains unfit for purpose. It botched the prosecution of police officers over a notorious miscarriage of justice through utter incompetence. It refuses to take responsibility for an appalling job throughout the notorious Lynette White Inquiry – far from the only botched prosecution it has been responsible for.

It prosecuted innocent men in spite of its Code for Crown Prosecutors, even having the chutzpah to justify the decision to prosecute by having secured convictions – now recognised as it should have been back then as one of Britain’s most notorious miscarriages of justice. It ignored the law when failing to appeal the outrageous leniency of the real killer’s tariff. Its performance in that case – and others too – has been a litany of gross failure.

It appointed a Disclosure Officer in a case where it knew that the defendants – former police officers – would seek to exploit disclosure obligations to undermine the trial. Despite this it fails to explain how the trial could have collapsed over disclosure if that lawyer had done his job. It refuses to account for the millions of public resources it has shamefully wasted, but it can prosecute people it accepts were bullied by those police officers and punish them alone for all the flaws its rotten performance in this case exemplifies.

The New Cardiff Three (Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Learnne Vilday) perjured themselves and perverted the course of justice, but unlike Briscoe they had no choice and the trial of those accused of forcing them to lie collapsed on an absurd technicality, meaning they evaded the consequences of their actions and uncivilised conduct. Our concern remains the conduct of the CPS. Judges being jailed for perjury is a rare occurrence – thankfully. However, justice must be dispensed evenly. In this case it has been, but what about all the others?

Embittered but Credible

Huhne, admittedly an embittered and ordinarily discredited source, raises important questions about the CPS. “Constance Briscoe has been revealed as a compulsive and self-publicising fantasist”, Huhne said after her conviction. “British justice is likely to be a lot fairer with Briscoe behind bars. If she can make up the witness statement used as the key evidence against me, she is clearly capable of hiding evidence she should have disclosed to the defence in the many cases that she prosecuted for the Crown Prosecution Service. Aggrieved defendants will now seek a CPS review”.

The Bar Council dismissed previous complaints against Briscoe as a family dispute. The judiciary also failed to rein in a judge, now exposed as rogue. The CPS has no plans to investigate cases handled by Briscoe as judge or barrister. Such decisions bring it into further disrepute. Surely now there can be no confidence in her conduct on the Bench and indeed as a barrister. And with the refusal of the CPS to investigate here cases, can there be any confidence in it?

The CPS will not investigate whether she has contributed to miscarriages of justice during her career at the Bar and on the Bench, which lasted almost three decades. The CPS has issued a statement: “We have no plans to review cases involving Constance Briscoe as counsel”. Why not? And why does the criminal justice system allow the CPS to betray justice yet again?

Radio Cardiff

Part One Satish Sekar with Georgina Sammut and Shawty

Satish Sekar discusses the foundation of The Fitted-In Project and why it was re-established on this Community Radio programme. He explains why the vindication of the Cardiff Five was necessary. Sekar details the methods used to secure convictions and consequences of it. He comments on why he holds the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) more responsible than the police for the wrongful prosecutions of the Cardiff Five. Sekar credits the work of Professor Dave Barclay in the eventual vindication of the Cardiff Five and also South Wales Police in correctly solving the murder of Lynette White. He details how they detected Gafoor.

Part Two Satish Sekar with Georgina Sammut and Shawty

Sekar explains the arrest of Jeffey Gafoor and the significance of vindication. There are currently seven such cases in Britain. He explains that there are more victims of these cases and that there has to be processes to explain how justice miscarried. Sekar details the trial of the core witnesses. He calls them the New Cardiff Three, He explains the role of the CPS in another vindication case, that of Phillip Skipper, for the murder of his estranged wife, Karen. It gifted a defence to the real murderer, John Pope, who repeatedly accused Skipper of being the murderer after Skipper had been acquitted and had sadly died. Sekar details how Barclay demolishes the prosecution scenario in the Lynette White Inquiry and why he should have been a witness in the collapsed trial, before explaining why Sekar was prevented from attending the Police Corruption Trial and its consequences. He explains his controversial view that the CPS, rather than South Wales Police are more responsible for the miscarriages of justice and how they have evaded taking responsibility for any of it. Sekar also calls for fiscal responsibility. He says both the IPCC and HMCPSI processes were inadequate.

Part Three Satish Sekar with Georgina Sammut and Shawty

In the third part of these interviews Sekar explains the process of trying to secure accountability from the CPS over the whole case. The CPS refused to answer his complaint – a process that has been ongoing since 1993! He explains how its own Code for Crown Prosecutors proves the Cardiff Five should never have been prosecuted. Sekar details why the CPS has to be held responsible and that Alun Michael has asked questions of the CPS as well. He then explains some projects that The Fitted-In Project conducts and the scandalous treatment that all the victims of vindication cases have been subjected to. Sekar then makes his case for fiscal accountability.

Downfall

The downfall of British judge Constance Briscoe has been long overdue. Briscoe claimed to have hauled herself up from adversity to sit on the Bench – a role model for aspiring black lawyers? She now contemplates her spectacular fall from grace from a prison cell – sentenced to 16 months for her part in the perversion of justice committed by former Minister Chris Huhne and former wife, the economist wife Vicky Pryce.

Briscoe crimes have been well reported, but should it have ever come to this. Fifteen years ago the Bar Council failed to investigate whether she was fit to practice over several very serious allegations, including forging signatures. The astonishing thing was the complainant was Briscoe’s mother whom she sued for libel. Her allegations are now being investigated.

An Ass

“Perjury strikes at the heart of the criminal justice system”, Mr Justice (Sir David) Maddison said when he jailed three witnesses who had lied in a notorious miscarriage of justice. Unlike Briscoe, Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Learnne Vilday had an excuse – a good one. They had browbeaten into telling the lies the police demanded of them.

Unlike Briscoe they had no real choice. Unlike Briscoe they had mitigation. The judge, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and even the police that investigated their perjury admitted that they had been bullied. They were subjected to conduct that was in Maddison’s words: “unacceptable in a civilised society”. They were denied a defence by an ass of a law that found this conduct unacceptable, but not duress. They perverted the course of justice, but unlike Briscoe only because justice had been perverted to force them to commit crimes against justice. The law that forced their convictions is archaic and unjust. In their situation virtually all of us would have done as they did, but unlike them Constance Briscoe freely chose her path

The New Cardiff Three were sent to jail for 18 months – two more than Briscoe who had no excuse and a year more than Huhne and Pryce – all of whom had privileged lives and no excuse. The New Cardiff Three really had rotten lives and were vulnerable to the abuse by the criminal justice system that overcame them. Briscoe claims she overcame serious adversity in her childhood – her family tell a different story. Years after the allegations of her being a fantasist and worse first surfaced, they are finally being investigated seriously. Briscoe may yet face further trials.

Unfit for Purpose

The CPS has had over a quarter of a century to overcome teething problems. But it remains unfit for purpose. It botched the prosecution of police officers over a notorious miscarriage of justice through utter incompetence. It refuses to take responsibility for an appalling job throughout the notorious Lynette White Inquiry – far from the only botched prosecution it has been responsible for. The sorry tale of that investigation and  trial is detailed in Satish Sekar’s book (see below).

It prosecuted innocent men in spite of its Code for Crown Prosecutors, even having the chutzpah to justify the decision to prosecute by having secured convictions – now recognised as it should have been back then as one of Britain’s most notorious miscarriages of justice. It ignored the law when failing to appeal the outrageous leniency of the real killer’s tariff. Its performance in that case – and others too – has been a litany of gross failure.

It failed to appoint a Disclosure Officer in a case where it knew that the defendants – former police officers would seek to exploit disclosure obligations to undermine the trial. It refuses to account for the millions of public resources it has shamefully wasted, but it can prosecute people it accepts were bullied by those police officers and punish them alone for all the flaws its rotten performance in this case exemplifies.

The New Cardiff Three perjured themselves and perverted the course of justice, but unlike Briscoe they had no choice and the trial of those accused of forcing them to lie collapsed on an absurd technicality. Our concern is the conduct of the CPS. Judges being jailed for perjury is a rare occurrence – thankfully. Surely now there can be no confidence in her conduct on the Bench and indeed as a barrister.

However, the CPS – venal as ever – will not investigate whether she has contributed to miscarriages of justice during her career at the Bar and on the Bench, which lasted almost three decades. The CPS has issued a statement: “We have no plans to review cases involving Constance Briscoe as counsel”. Why not?

Damage Limitation

The Police Corruption Trial of the Century ended in farce on December 1^st 2011 – a nine year investigative process had resulted in convictions of three vulnerable witnesses and no others. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), prosecutor Nicholas Dean QC and defence lawyers – police even – all accepted that they had been forced to lie (see Duress and The Lawʼs An Ass). Nevertheless, the law did not recognise the duress that they had suffered.

Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Learnne Vilday therefore had no choice but to plead guilty to perjuring themselves.¹ Having done so, they were treated leniently due to the bullying they had endured by police officers who had in the words of the judge used methods that were “unacceptable in a civilised society”.

The New Cardiff Three were sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. By March 2009 the CPS announced that 13 police officers (some of whom had retired) had been charged with a variety of offences including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and perjury. Two witnesses also faced those charges. They had no intention of going down meekly. However, this would prove to be a poorly prepared prosecution marred by penny-pinching foolishness that would ultimately cost the public millions more and deprive us all of the accountability and answers we have waited years to discover.

The Judge

Despite the seriousness of the case it was destined to be heard in Swansea before Mr Justice (Sir Nigel) Sweeney. The judge had been involved in prosecuting a notorious crime – the Chillenden attack on the Russell family which left Lin Russell and her daughter Megan and dog Lucy dead and Josie Russell fighting for her life.

Sweeney knew that the Crownʼs pathologist – albeit subsequently discredited – suggested that there had been significant contact between the killer and a bootlace used to strangle the unfortunate Megan. There was no disputing that the contact was substantial and that the killerʼs DNA would have been on the lace, but Sweeney knew that Michael Stoneʼs DNA was not on that boot-lace. This was strong evidence of innocence, but a fanciful explanation was advanced and Stoneʼs defence accepted the Crownʼs willingness to stipulate that Stoneʼs DNA and fingerprints had not been discovered at the crime-scene.

The Crown claimed that Stone – a habitual drugs-user – had obtained the lace from another user and had used it to restrain Megan. Somehow despite putting substantial pressure through the lace onto his fingers he had not deposited his own DNA while both Meganʼs and the unknown drug-user he had allegedly obtained the lace from remained on it, or at least alleles (bands in the DNA testing system used did).

It was obvious that the far more probable explanation of the unidentified male DNA at the relevant points on the lace was that it had been shed by the killer. It was yet another example of a convenient interpretation of the DNA results – one that stretched credibility and most probably contributed to an egregious miscarriage of justice. Sweeney was either aware of the fanciful nature of the explanation that he relied on, or he should have been.

Precedent Ignored

Stone was convicted again in September 2001 and subsequently lost an appeal. An application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) failed to present the compelling scientific evidence of innocence. He remains in prison for very serious crimes that he did not commit in circumstances where strong evidence supporting his claims of innocence has never been heard by any court or even the CCRC.

By this time a very significant miscarriage of justice – a Dutch vindication case had thoroughly unravelled. The Schiedammer Parkmoord has been covered in considerable detail by us (see the various articles on that case). Astonishingly the significance and potential of that case remains largely ignored by supporters of Stone, lawyers and media all professing to champion his innocence even though the methods used in that case to prove the innocence of Kees Borsboom are plainly apt in Stoneʼs case.

Shamefully, the scope to prove him innocent remains ignored while an almost certainly innocent man languishes in prison while an expert who has first hand experience of the issues involved is denied the opportunity to test his claims of innocence. Sweeneyʼs role in securing this miscarriage of justice has never been subjected to public scrutiny. Over a decade later no media apart from us even mentions it, let alone investigates it.

Damage Limitation

The Police Corruption Trial of the Century ended in farce on December 1^st 2011 – a nine year investigative process had resulted in convictions of three vulnerable witnesses and no others. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), prosecutor Nicholas Dean QC and defence lawyers – police even – all accepted that they had been forced to lie (see Duress and The Lawʼs An Ass). Nevertheless, the law did not recognise the duress that they had suffered.

Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Learnne Vilday therefore had no choice but to plead guilty to perjuring themselves.¹ Having done so, they were treated leniently due to the bullying they had endured by police officers who had in the words of the judge used methods that were “unacceptable in a civilised society”.

The New Cardiff Three were sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. By March 2009 the CPS announced that 13 police officers (some of whom had retired) had been charged with a variety of offences including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and perjury. Two witnesses also faced those charges. They had no intention of going down meekly. However, this would prove to be a poorly prepared prosecution marred by penny-pinching foolishness that would ultimately cost the public millions more and deprive us all of the accountability and answers we have waited years to discover.

The Judge

Despite the seriousness of the case it was destined to be heard in Swansea before Mr Justice (Sir Nigel) Sweeney. The judge had been involved in prosecuting a notorious crime – the Chillenden attack on the Russell family which left Lin Russell and her daughter Megan and dog Lucy dead and Josie Russell fighting for her life.

Sweeney knew that the Crownʼs pathologist – albeit subsequently discredited – suggested that there had been significant contact between the killer and a bootlace used to strangle the unfortunate Megan. There was no disputing that the contact was substantial and that the killerʼs DNA would have been on the lace, but Sweeney knew that Michael Stoneʼs DNA was not on that boot-lace. This was strong evidence of innocence, but a fanciful explanation was advanced and Stoneʼs defence accepted the Crownʼs willingness to stipulate that Stoneʼs DNA and fingerprints had not been discovered at the crime-scene.

The Crown claimed that Stone – a habitual drugs-user – had obtained the lace from another user and had used it to restrain Megan. Somehow despite putting substantial pressure through the lace onto his fingers he had not deposited his own DNA while both Meganʼs and the unknown drug-user he had allegedly obtained the lace from remained on it, or at least alleles (bands in the DNA testing system used did).

It was obvious that the far more probable explanation of the unidentified male DNA at the relevant points on the lace was that it had been shed by the killer. It was yet another example of a convenient interpretation of the DNA results – one that stretched credibility and most probably contributed to an egregious miscarriage of justice. Sweeney was either aware of the fanciful nature of the explanation that he relied on, or he should have been.

Precedent Ignored

Stone was convicted again in September 2001 and subsequently lost an appeal. An application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) failed to present the compelling scientific evidence of innocence. He remains in prison for very serious crimes that he did not commit in circumstances where strong evidence supporting his claims of innocence has never been heard by any court or even the CCRC.

By this time a very significant miscarriage of justice – a Dutch vindication case had thoroughly unravelled. The Schiedammer Parkmoord has been covered in considerable detail by us (see the various articles on that case). Astonishingly the significance and potential of that case remains largely ignored by supporters of Stone, lawyers and media all professing to champion his innocence even though the methods used in that case to prove the innocence of Kees Borsboom are plainly apt in Stoneʼs case.

Shamefully, the scope to prove him innocent remains ignored while an almost certainly innocent man languishes in prison while an expert who has first hand experience of the issues involved is denied the opportunity to test his claims of innocence. Sweeneyʼs role in securing this miscarriage of justice has never been subjected to public scrutiny. Over a decade later no media apart from us even mentions it, let alone investigates it.

Duress – A Legal Quagmire
Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Learnne Vilday (the New Cardiff Three) were told that they had a responsibility to tell the truth and should have reported what had been done to them. The prosecutor, Nicholas Dean QC, said that they had time to tell before the committal hearing and trials, but who should they have told? Vilday had tried more than once to tell the truth. Each time she was brought back into line. Psaila tried as well and she too was brought back into line. Grommek stuck rigidly to the script, although he fought his corner on duress hardest of all. They plainly believed that they had no choice but to lie and Vilday at least had indeed tried to tell the truth as Dean and the CPS had demanded. It did her no good.

These witnesses were being looked after by police officers who had not been involved in the original inquiry. They also had access to court officials before giving evidence. According to their prosecutors they should have told the truth to either those police officers or the officials of the court. This took no account of the psychological trauma they had suffered and also the legal and political climate of the time.

What would have happened if they had done precisely what Dean demanded of them? An investigation would have followed, which would have been their word against the police they accused of bullying them without the certain knowledge we now have that they had indeed been lying about the guilt of the Cardiff Five. What was the likelihood of them being believed?

In March 1990 Alban Turner, wrongly convicted of murdering Michael Galvin at the 1987 Notting Hill Carnival was freed on appeal. The star witness Kevin Sarbutts had retracted, alleging serious police malpractice. The now defunct Police Complaints Authority (PCA) investigated those allegations. His lies against Turner, which he admitted to, were never investigated. Sarbutts was convicted by a jury that asked for him to be treated leniently. He was sentenced to three years in prison.

A Dangerous Precedent

If they had told the truth earlier they would almost certainly have shared the fate of Sarbutts. His complaint to the PCA was used to prosecute him for perjury, but not in relation to his self-confessed lies about Turner. He was prosecuted and convicted of perjury in 1994 for his claims of police malpractice. If the New Cardiff Three had told the truth between December 1988 and November 1990, they would in all probability have gone to jail then and for longer, but for what they said about the police – the very things Mr Justice Maddison’s court accepted were true.

Vilday and Psaila pleaded guilty when told they would be sentenced on one count rather than the three they were charged with. Grommek elected to be tried, pending a decision on whether duress could be a defence to perjury. Mr Justice Maddison eventually decided that duress was no defence to perjury, so Grommek changed his plea to guilty. He had been left with no choice, but he was left with the three counts. They were convicted due to the laws on duress to perjury charges and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment each, despite the judge branding police conduct to them as: “unacceptable in a civilised society”.

Another Miscarriage of Justice

They now want their convictions quashed and a public inquiry. But this requires a change in the law. If what happened to them does not count as duress, then the law is wrong. The unacceptable conduct resulted in statements containing a perjury warning, but it had the opposite effect to that intended by those who drafted that law. Instead of preventing perjury it led inexorably to the evidence they were forced to give. They had no realistic choice but to do as they did back then – perjure themselves.

20 years later they were prosecuted for doing what they were forced to. The criminal justice system accepts that they have now told the truth about what was done to them in 1988, but the law offers them no remedy, just a criminal conviction – the only people held legally accountable for the miscarriage of justice that befell the Cardiff Five.

On any normal definition of the term the New Cardiff Three are victims of a shameful miscarriage of justice – one that offers a stark warning of what will happen even if witnesses have compelling proof that they were forced into perjuring themselves. Meanwhile, the officers whose conduct was branded ‘unacceptable in a civilised society’ were told that they would face trial – a trial that would later collapse in farcical circumstances.

Continue to Exceptional Injustice P.5

A Deeply Flawed Process
We had hoped that the inquiry into what went wrong, which began in July 2003, would mean that our task had been completed. There was a lot of material to go through and the whole process took over eight years only to end in abject failure. Thirty-four people involved in that case – 20 were serving or retired police officers – were arrested and interviewed under caution on suspicion of offences including perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. South Wales Police insisted on conducting the investigation themselves. This was a preventable error. If anything went wrong, which it did, the failure would be blamed on them whether it was their fault or not.

The IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) became involved in 2004 and later the (CPS) Crown Prosecution Service were consulted too. The CPS’s Serious Crimes Department eventually decided which of the 34 would face trial and who would not. Despite only taking silk recently (becoming a Queen’s Counsel) recently Nicholas Dean was appointed to lead the prosecutions. The CPS has never explained why it chose such a comparatively inexperienced QC to lead such important prosecutions.

In 2007 it decided to prosecute the so-called core witnesses – the alleged eye-witnesses – first. Paul Atkins was deemed unfit to stand trial, which left Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Learnne Vilday to stand trial on three counts of perjury which began on October 17th 2008. This decision was tactically inept and would have huge consequences later. It would lead to a miscarriage of justice – the second in the same case. It would also demonstrate the fundamental unfairness of the laws on duress – a defence which was denied to these defendants even though everyone present at their trial including judge, jury and prosecution accepted that they had been bullied into making those statements by the police.

The Fruit of the Poisoned Tree

Unlike many The Fitted-In Project saw the injustice of what was happening at the time and our CEO Satish Sekar immediately highlighted it in the Fitted-In Journal. The CPS had used the system and law well – cynically in fact. Prosecuting the three witnesses meant that it could not be accused of favouring them, but there was a problem and their lawyers knew it. Their statements and testimony had been studded with inconsistencies and lies and this had been glaringly obvious for 20 years.

These were the very lies that established them as prosecution witnesses against the Cardiff Five. They had been boxed in to commit perjury by these statements. Surely, the way the statements had been obtained was relevant, or at least it should have been.

They had told the same story – the truth for several months in 1988 – until ‘conduct unacceptable in a civilised society’ turned them into prosecution witnesses in November and December 1988. Once those statements were made – the CPS belatedly accepted that these were extracted under duress – they were trapped, knowing that if they deviated from them they could be prosecuted. Now, without trace of irony in the CPS, they were prosecuted for telling the very lies they had been forced to tell.

The CPS knew that it needed to avoid charging them over those statements, as it was part of their case that these witnesses had indeed been bullied and hectored and subjected to treatment that disgraced the criminal justice system. They were charged over the committal hearings and both trials of the Cardiff Five, but not over their statements. That was deliberate, as the Crown would claim that they had ample opportunity to tell the truth after they had been bullied, but did they?

There was no doubt that these witnesses had lied both in their crucial statements and in evidence at the committal hearing of the Cardiff Five and two trials. The questions that needed answering were why and whether they had any free choice in their actions? This was in fact the classic example of the fruit of the poisoned tree and contributed to yet another miscarriage of justice – something we highlighted when our CEO dubbed them the ‘New Cardiff Three’.

To prosecute people for telling lies that prosecuting authorities accept they were forced to tell is grossly unfair to put it mildly and to deny them access to the clearest proof that they too were victims of scandalous conduct denied them their right to a fair trial.

Continue to Exceptional Injustice P.4