Justice Betrayed

by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (May 7^th 2011)

Inadequate Representation

Russell Crookes was a student at Hadlow Agricultural College in Kent when he went missing in May 1998. His partially burned, mutilated and maggot-infested body was discovered nearly two weeks later.  It was an awful crime – of that there is no doubt. His murderer(s) deserved to be punished severely.

He had last been seen in the company of fellow students Neil Sayers and Graham Wallis. They soon emerged as the prime suspects – the only ones Kent Police investigated. Sayers protested his innocence, but Wallis confessed, although his confession was that he was there while Sayers did everything. It was more accusation than confession. Sayers’ solicitor at trial, Ian Reed, failed to grasp the significance of forensic science in this case.

He did not even notice the maggots, let alone understand their potential. The entomological evidence only had a chance of emerging for one reason. I knew that they should have been sent to a forensic entomologist and insisted on knowing what had happened to them, because if they existed, they could still be tested, even then, five years later.

Wasted Opportunities

Reed completely wasted the opportunity and the pathologist instructed by him, Peter Jerreat, failed to inform him as well, but Jerreat was the wrong choice. Reed’s firm Berry and Berry knew all about Michael Heath’s dubious pathology. The firm had done an excellent job of representing Craig Kerwin a year before Sayers’ arrest. They knew that Heath’s methods were suspect and which forensic pathologists should have been instructed. Reed made a mess of the opportunity.

The pathology-related issues were of great significance. That would have been realised if it had been investigated properly at the time. It wasn’t, but that could and should occur later this year, more than a decade after Heath made a mess of his case.

Sayers’ case is unique as the man who prosecuted him, Charles Miskin QC, relied on Heath as a credible expert, but subsequently turned the tables on Heath. Miskin represented the Pathology Delivery Board in the tribunal that it brought against Heath.

Miskin demolished Heath’s credibility without grasping the importance of pathology-related issues that were actually vital to Sayers’ case. Meanwhile, Sayers remains in prison waiting for a competent review of Heath’s pathology, which David Jessel failed to provide when the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) reviewed its cases that Heath was involved in.

Weak

Reed’s successor, Kevin Hansford, was even worse, regarding the maggots. Despite being made aware of them and their significance, he insisted on wasting months refusing to ask the police if they existed because he decided that they would not still be available five years on. That was not his job and he was wrong anyway.

He had been asked by Sayers – instructed actually – to enquire about them, but could not be bothered. He expected the CCRC to investigate everything that he put to them, yet refused to investigate. His submissions were utterly inadequate to put it mildly. Forensic science, let alone entomology, was not even mentioned in a case that could and should have become Britain’s genuine CSI if either he or Reed had done their jobs adequately. Unsurprisingly, Hansford’s weak application was rejected. If I had received such an application I’d have rejected it too.

Despite the rejection of his application, Hansford continued to refuse to ask the police if the maggots existed. Patience ran out and he was replaced by a solicitor prepared to ask the question, Jane Hickman. She didn’t think they would exist either, but unlike Hansford, she was prepared to ask the question and was happy to be proved wrong. Some maggots were located and provided to experts instructed by Hickman.

Legal aid was granted to have the maggots examined by Dr Martin Hall and a second expert, Dr Mark Benecke was independently instructed as well. Sadly, Heath’s wretched pathology loomed large still, as his report resulted in an error in the instructions, due his insistence on using misleading terminology that was unsupported by the evidence. The consequences of this error have never been redressed and probably never will be.