'Will I Ever Get Out of Here, Stuck Inside These 4 Walls' - Sent Down for 15 Years Now in My 36th

'Will I Ever Get Out of Here, Stuck Inside These 4 Walls' - Sent Down for 15 Years Now in My 36th

 
Ray Gilbert, By Bruce Kent, MOJUK, 16/03/2016

A mixed race child, Raymond Gilbert, grew up in poverty. He had a speech impediment, was given a patchy education and drifted into the underworld of Liverpool crime.  He already had a record for robbery and for one assault before the accusation of murder. He was therefore a likely suspect when a local betting shop manager was murdered in the course of a robbery in 1981 in Liverpool.

But suspicion is not enough. What of evidence? Against neither Gilbert nor Kamara, his co accused, was there any evidence to connect them with the murder.  Kamara, not Gilbert, was picked out on an identification parade by one witness who said he saw Kamara struggling with another man outside the betting shop at about the time of the murder. The parade itself was not run according to proper rules. The witnesses had failed to pick out Gilbert on the first parade. The second parade was made up of a number of the same people with Kamara introduced as one of the new people. Kamara was identified not Gilbert.

However, that no longer matters. The Court of Appeal has given its ruling in 2000 about Kamara’s innocence, and it did so, in part, because a large number of witness statements were not given to the defence at the time of the trial.  Some of them even contradicted the witness evidence that was used. There was no investigation into the threat made by one customer at the betting shop that he would return to ‘sort out’ the manager the next day (the day of the murder) if he was not paid.

What then was the case against Gilbert? The murder took place at about 9.30 am on Friday 13 March 1981.  Gilbert was detained on Monday 16 March and then spent two days and nights in police custody before being remanded to prison. No fingerprint, footprint, forensic, bloodstains, witness evidence or knife has ever connected Gilbert with the crime.

Did Gilbert have an alibi? Well he had one. He returned to the flat he shared with his girlfriend, after drinking with friends, between 1 and 2 am on the morning of the murder. Apart from a visit to the newsagent/tobacconists later that morning, he was with her all day. At least she stuck to that story for some time, but after interrogation she was actually charged on 18 March, with impeding the course of justice, and remanded in custody.  As a result of this intimidation she then changed her story and said that Gilbert had gone out early on the morning of the murder.

What then was the evidence against Gilbert, who had repudiated his confession and initially pleaded Not Guilty, when the case came to trial in November ‘81?  Simply that after two days and nights of police interrogation in March 81 with little sleep and no legal representative present, he had confessed to murder and signed a detailed statement. Worse, he involved an associate of his, Johnny Kamara, and said that Kamara had been with him. Why? Who knows? He says he was shown a photofit picture and asked to identify the people in it. Whether Kamara’s name was suggested to him we do not know. The interviews were not taped.

What of the confession? It is said that it revealed details of the murder that only someone who had been at the scene of the crime could have known. This is nonsense. He was in the custody of two policemen who would have been negligent if they had not known all the details of the crime. Did they, convinced they were dealing with a murderer, reveal details to Gilbert which he could not have known anyway from reading the Liverpool papers? That is at least possible.

Anyway, Gilbert’s first verbal admission which was noted by the police, and his subsequent written confession, differ in significant ways. In the first place he said he threw the knife down a drain after leaving the betting shop. In the written confession, which he signed, he said he took it to a friend’s house, where indeed a possible knife was found. Then in his first admission he said that the betting shop door was open and that the two of them just went in. In the signed statement he said they had to grab the manager, poke him with a knife, and make him open the door. It is just possible that these changes were suggested to him by the police because they fitted statements made by other witnesses.

In any event, since the Court of Appeal has decided that Gilbert’s confession, insofar as it involved Kamara, was untrue, why should it be assumed that the rest of the confession is true?

 Why then was a confession of any sort made if he was innocent? On that issue the distinguished consultant psychologist, Olive Tunstall, having examined Gilbert in preparation for his appeal process, prepared a detailed report on his makeup and background, dated April 1999.  She says: “In my opinion there is evidence to suggest that the confession Mr Gilbert made during the police interviews may have been unreliable. I have based that opinion on the following grounds.” The first of these is as follows: “Mr Gilbert’s personal vulnerability at that time (youth, limited education, abnormal personality, stammer, adverse social circumstances and in my opinion a profound fear of being physically assaulted emanating from early childhood experiences), his lack of access of legal advice and evidence that at the time he began his confession he was in a state of high anxiety.” Olive Tunstall’s detailed 29-page report confirms that there are serious doubts about Gilbert’s conviction.

There is another point which is significant. While the judge was summing up in the Kamara case, some of the jurors asked him why, in the police photograph of the murder scene, a full bottle of milk and what looks like a newspaper are clearly evident on a dresser. The jurors rightly wanted to know how they got there. They must have been carried into the shop by somebody, but certainly not by the manager if he was, according to Gilbert’s confession, struggling vigorously against two robbers. It is possible that someone else had entered the shop, perhaps someone connected with the previous day’s threat, and was lying in wait for the manager, who himself brought in the milk and the paper.  However, thanks to Gilbert’s confession and the witness evidence of identification against Kamara, it does not seem to have occurred to the Judge that the murder might have been committed by somebody else. All he could say in reply to the question from the jurors was “It is so difficult to understand why it matters.”

Not that it did much matter for Gilbert. Some days after the trial in November 81 began - two juries were discharged - Gilbert got up and changed his plea to guilty.  His words were: “This has been going on long enough, so I want to change from Not Guilty to Guilty”. At that point the judge stopped him from going further.  It is at least possible that he was going on to say that Kamara had not been with him.

Why would he make that admission granted the lack of evidence against him, and did he realise that in so doing he was probably shutting prison doors on himself for a long time?

Gilbert’s explanation for the change of plea was that he was threatened in prison that he would be “done” if he did not get Kamara off. He was certainly in prison with some very tough people, quite capable of making and putting such threats into action. He may also have thought he was doomed anyway after his written confession and wanted to get the whole business over with.

Gilbert has now spent over 35 years in prison, 20 years over tariff, he begins his 36th year on Wednesday 16th March 2016.  His efforts to get Kamara off at the trial did not succeed, though he did try again in prison in 1982 by suggesting that someone else, not Kamara, had been his partner. Once he was moved to another prison, in 1982 away from those intimidating him, he again claimed that he was innocent.

For the last 35 years he has maintained his innocence. If he had taken the parole road, admitted guilt, and been conformist in prison, he would certainly be out of prison now. Today his case would never have gone to trial. A confession, with all its contradictions, obtained as Gilbert’s was would be rejected as evidence.

However, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, in March 2000, denied Gilbert access to the Court of Appeal. When the Commissioners made that decision they could not have known that Kamara’s separate appeal would be upheld in May 2000. This decision by the Court of Appeal to free Kamara undermines the credibility of Gilbert’s entire confession.

  I have visited him many times since I was made aware of the case and have visited him in many prisons.  It is clear to me, not only that that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, but that he is an innocent man unjustly imprisoned. This year or next he might be released on parole. He is now doing some ‘outside’ work. I keep my fingers crossed.

Are We Just Out For Blood? - Jacqui Hodgkiss

I appreciate that in recent times there has been a raising of awareness on victim impact, which I wholeheartedly support. However, this can not be at the expense of jeopardising British standards of the process of a fair and legal trial. Victims and their families are, understandably, highly emotional in the aftermath of any offence. Feelings such as these must not be allowed to have a place in the rule of law, to ensure a fair and just legal system. There are good reasons why matters are placed into impartial hands of our police and courts. Nor should policing or courts be pressurised by angry mob mentalities to make arrests and rulings in order to appease an enraged public. Such decisions should not be placed in the care of those whose emotional turmoil may lead to the desire of locking people up and throwing away the key, but by those who can impartially assess and appraise the individual nuances and circumstances of each and every case. As a society that values individuality we understand that generalisation born from prejudicial attitudes rarely offers fairness.

 

But what about the emotional impact on the families? Well, systems in other countries successfully manage these issues without compromising the right to a fair and just trial. For example victim impact statements at sentencing. Once guilt or innocence has been established, by good police work and competent legal professionals, victims can then play a role without prejudicing proceedings. 

Currently, it is possible that victims can influence outcomes of trials with their rights to express in the media allegations of guilt and innocence coupled with, what may be viewed as character assassinations of those standing trial, based solely on their own assumptions and before the evidence is put before a court. This is a right many defendants' claim they are denied as they can only idly stand by, bound by laws that do not allow the defendant to challenge these assignations or address misinformation that colour public opinion unfavourably against them. We all want to see justice being served, but with such comprises is it justice? Is the right person being put behind bars, or should we ask ourselves are we just out for blood?

Jacqui Hodgkiss 

When the Law Takes the Wrong Turn - Jan Cunliffe

[Originally published in The Huffington Post]

Way back in 1984 when I was a little girl with no idea what my future held, the law took a wrong turn. A turn I was oblivious to, but one that would one day engulf my entire life for over eight and a half years.

On a hot summer night in 1991 I gave birth to my first child, a healthy baby boy with the most beautiful eyes I have ever seen. Less than a year later I did the same again. I was the luckiest woman in the world; they were my pride and joy, always full of fun and sometimes a little bit naughty. I don't recall a month, a week or even a day that I was unhappy, although I am certain there must have been moments.

Everything changed in 2007 again on a hot summers night when both my 15 year old boys were charged with the murder of Garry Newlove. None of us knew Mr Newlove, his wife or his three daughters, but all of us were overwhelmed with grief that a 47 year old man had died so unnecessarily in his bare feet just 500 yards from his home. I am no detective but it was clear in the initial police interviews that my boys not only played no part in his attack, but they had not even witnessed it.

The press reported it as a savage gang attack, yet the Police Forensic Pathologist on oath, said the victims injuries were not consistent with a beating, that Mr Newlove had died because of a single unique injury. For all of us the trial process was about finding the truth, giving that truth to the jury so they could reach the correct verdict and satisfying the bereaved family that justice had been done.

The jury came back after 10 agonising days of deliberations and out of the five teenage defendants they found three of them guilty of joint enterprise murder and acquitted two. One of those found guilty was my eldest son, Jordan Cunliffe, by now he was age 16, but still my baby. The terrified pitch of the scream that came from his broken heart will be a sound I will never forget. The sight of his beautiful brown eyes as they blindly tried to search his brother out will be a vision I will carry until my dying day. How could the British justice system that claims to be the finest in the world, do this to a vulnerable child, a child who was proven in court not to have murdered anyone, yet still found him guilty of murder? It was because the law took a wrong turn in 1984, when I was a little girl and long before he was born.

The months turned in to years, the agony into frustration, but never bitterness. I knew the law was wrong, I knew my boy was innocent, so I set out on a mission to prove just that. With a strong feeling that he could not possibly be the only one that this dreadful thing had happened to I sought out others. I was lucky enough to meet like-minded women who felt just as I did. Beautiful, courageous women who trusted my judgement and supported me through my darkest days. And believe me those days were very dark, so dark and filled with madness I refuse to step too close even when just recalling them.

Jordan was considered registered blind on the night of the incident. He suffers from acute kerataconus and corneal scaring in both eyes. No matter how hard Jordan tried then or how he tries now he will never be able to explain what happened that night as his failing eyes saw nothing. On conviction the Judge in his wisdom placed a gagging order on anyone broadcasting his disability, all of which added further to my extreme misery. How could I explain his case to people if the most important aspect of who he was could never be told? There were so many things during the trial and afterwards that have gone wrong for Jordan. The use of the possibility of foresight that death or serious injury may occur during a spontaneous act of violence that lasted between 3 and 10 seconds on a blind child was just one them. How can anyone logically foresee what may unfold if they cannot see what is happening in the first place?

I am now overjoyed that the Supreme Court made the right decision on Thursday 18th February 2016, when they came to the conclusion that the controversial legal doctrine of joint enterprise had taken a wrong turn and since then been misinterpreted for over three decades. It was vindication for all I have been saying for over 8 years. I wish I was the kind of woman that could say the agony of losing Jordan was worth it if it means what happened to him will never happen quite so easily ever again, but I would be a liar. Until Jordan Cunliffe is acquitted he must remain in prison and continue serving a life sentence for a murder he never committed. And as his mother I will continue to fight for the freedom and respect that he deserves.

Information regarding Joint Enterprise can be found on the JENGbA Campaigners website http://www.jointenterprise.co/

By Jan Cunliffe (Joint Enterprise not guilty by association (JENGbA) co-founder and campaigner)

"An Amazing Day": Jan Cunliffe's message to JENGbA's Inside Campaigners about the UKSC landmark Joint Enterprise judgment

What an amazing day Thursday 18th February 2016 turned out to be. We were number two slot on the news. The Prime Minister made an announcement on the same morning, and according to a reliable media source it’s terribly rude not to put him on first even if what comes second is more interesting. I'm sure you're all aware that after the joyous reporting of the morning things started to falter with some of the mainstream media by late afternoon. That is probably because the BBC news website had gained over a million watched hits by lunchtime and bad murderous news stories sell better than good old fashioned success stories. This is perhaps why tactics changed by Friday morning with some of the papers awash with foolish headlines such as, 'Hundreds of Dangerous Murders Could Walk Free due to Supreme Court Ruling'. Don't worry though the Supreme Court Judges soon put the record straight and many MP's and knowledgeable legal people jumped on board to quash the mayhem via social media.

Facebook and Twitter was on fire with concerns from members of the public who were horrified that the law had taken a wrong turn for over three decades. Some were concerned that killers really would be set free, but still accepted how wrong it was that people who hadn't committed a murder were doing life for murder. There was some input from victims’ families, you may have noticed how they were confused and worried about the implications of the ruling, and quite rightly so.

It was never the job of JENGbA to inform victims’ families that a joint enterprise case was being heard at the Supreme Court, and even if it was possible to track down every family who had lost a love one and seen a conviction gained via joint enterprise, (which it isn't), it would have been highly inappropriate for us to contact them anyway. Firstly because we are here to support you, and secondly we had no idea what the result was going to be.

It seemed to me that some journalists felt there was a battle between victims of crime and victims of injustice. I am always asked how I feel about the victims, of course there is only one answer, and it is the same answer that every sane person would have. No victim was asked how they would feel if they found out that an innocent person was serving a life sentence for murder? We are not at war with the victims and nor should they be with us. The law took a wrong turn in 1984, the law got it wrong and because of that we are all paying a heavy price. Don't ever feel angry with the victims’ families, they have had the wool pulled over their eyes throughout,  and it must be devastating to now have to come to terms with the possibilities of what the future may throw at them.

So much news following the ruling means the vultures are circling. Good stories about miscarriages of justice sell newspapers, and a good documentary idea gets commissioned, so there is money to be made from all of our misery. I'm personally not worried about the media because if time and money can be invested by others in getting the message out there I welcome it, (as long as it is the truth). Many families did this and many more can contribute in the future, but they may want your permission first. I would say let them help you if they are willing to do so.

However, I am seeing law firms pop up declaring their acute awareness of the Supreme Court’s judgment and falling over themselves with promises of help. All I can say is JENGbA has been campaigning for years, we have struggled on a shoestring and to the best of my knowledge some of the names I'm seeing come out of the woodwork right now never showed an ounce of genuine concern for any of you or the JENGbA campaigners as we struggled to inform the public and MP's alike on the failings of joint enterprise. However, that is not to say it is all about the money and that alone, maybe they do have morals and a genuine concern. Only you can decide where and how you move forward, and who with. Just remember for those of you who are not wealthy, it should not cost you or your family anything right now. If you are asked for money upfront please contact JENGbA and we will find out why.

JENGbA newsletter January - February 2016 Issue 37

You can view/save/print JENGbA's latest newsletter after UKSC Jogee by clicking HERE

Five years later, and job half done

Five years later, and job half done 

When JENGbA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association) was formed in September 2010, we had no idea how many people were serving life in prison for murders committed by other people. Neither did the CPS which did not even bother to record when the common law doctrine of joint enterprise was applied in multiple prosecutions.

We suspected the number might be large but nothing like the 600 (and growing) who have been discovered so far.  It is no wonder that the Council of Europe’s figures show that the UK has the largest proportion of lifers for the population than the rest of Europe combined.  The projected cost of incarcerating so many prisoners for long sentences is staggering. It is also no wonder that the prison estate is bursting at the seams in England & Wales.

We knew joint enterprise was unfair and that it discriminated against people for being poor, young, black, Asian or from other ethnic minorities.  We knew the popular press was quick to swallow the easy label of ‘gang murder’ fed by politicians from all parties vying to be seen as ‘tough on crime’. We saw some police spokespersons gloating triumphantly as they claimed the streets were safer due to the deterrent of joint enterprise, although knife crime is currently on the rise. We witnessed the ease with which the CPS scored flimsy convictions on the basis of what someone supposedly anticipated another person might do.  Joint enterprise had become the perfect thought-crime and the UK was apparently the better for its wide application in the courts.

But we did not yet know how to tackle this injustice. Our Inside Campaigners, as we call the growing number of joint enterprise lifers, were reviled in the media as the worst of the worst and blamed for the most appalling acts of cruelty and violence possible.  What could a small group of women and families do to change the law?

We talked, we met, we sought advice from concerned legal professionals. We learned as much as we could about this Common Law doctrine and found who was speaking out against its misuse.  We were surprised to discover that some very distinguished politicians, senior judges, legal academics and many others shared our concerns.

And as the JENGbA family grew, our Outside Campaigners became more confident and our voices grew louder. We knew we were making headway when knee-jerk critics  poured scorn on our campaign and some career politicians tried to write us off as misguided do-gooders or families of criminals who were too blinded to accept the reality of what our loved ones had done.

But we didn’t slink away defeated and ashamed. We knew we were right to challenge this legal abuse and we gained more interest and support. JENGbA has been aided, guided and bolstered in our campaign by many wonderful supporters, from ordinary people helping stuff newsletters into envelopes and joining demonstrations to extraordinary people – actors, musicians, authors, legal practitioners & lecturers, reporters and even some politicians from all leanings who put hard principles before cheap popularity.

It all culminated in the UK Supreme Court this week with the electric moment when Lord Neuberger declared that the law had taken a wrong turning 30 years ago. JENGbA finally knew our campaign with others for joint enterprise reform had been successful.  The imbalance in the criminal law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland had shifted towards fairness and a higher evidential threshold needed for conviction had been restored.  Prosecutors would have to work harder to prove guilt and individual responsibility would matter more than collective liability.

But what now for the 600-plus already known to JENGbA and for other unknown joint enterprise lifers? And what now for JENGbA itself?

It is far from over. The hard work begins of ensuring all those convicted unfairly by joint enterprise are identified and their cases reviewed as quickly as possible. JENGbA will hold those charged with this task to account. The means by which the courts and Ministry of Justice will deal with those affected by this week’s landmark ruling have yet to be worked out. We wait for the UK government’s response and to hear exactly what is proposed. But JENGbA will not rest until all the men, women, boys and girls condemned unfairly to life sentences by Joint Enterprise are given fair justice.

For some, the convictions should be erased and they should be helped to rebuild their lives as innocent, exonerated citizens. For others, the murder convictions should be quashed and replaced by lesser convictions with smaller penalties.  For few, their guilt may not alter and sentences remain in force but even for these they should be afforded a case review to ensure the law has properly taken its course.

Those affected by unjust convictions should be given legal help as the cost of doing so is far outweighed by the burden on the state of keeping them unfairly locked up.  The overcrowding of prisons will be eased and huge savings can be achieved in the process of redressing injustices. Help and compensation should be available for those whose lives have been cruelly disrupted by unfair convictions.  Again, this is a small cost against the public financial burden of incarcerating people unjustly for many years.  The personal costs of injustice on the prisoners and their loved ones cannot be calculated but JENGbA feels some provision to help those affected must be offered, not as an appeasement for judicial abuse but as a marker of a civilised society.

We wait to see what happens but we will not wait too long. Your call, Mr Gove.

JENGbA PRESS RELEASE ON UK SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT 18.2.16

Legal history has been made today - the law of joint enterprise as we know it is dead.

This was a law which allowed someone to be sent to prison for life merely because he or she foresaw what someone else might do. We said that it was a “lazy” law, a short-cut to conviction which confused juries and judges alike and which has resulted in widespread miscarriages of justice for decades.

For more than five years, JENGbA has campaigned tirelessly for change.  The Supreme Court has listened and we have been vindicated.  

Gloria Morrison of JENGbA said:

“It has the taken the hard work of many people over many years to get to this stage but we were never in any doubt that reform would come. The more we talked to people about joint enterprise, the more they became convinced that it had to change. We are grateful to the Justice Select Committee for their work. Their call for a change in the law was a turning point. There are many academics, lawyers and journalists who have helped us along the way. We wish to thank them all but in particular, we are indebted to our patrons, Lord Herman Ouseley and Jimmy McGovern, whose drama Common brought home to millions the injustice that the law of joint enterprise caused.

JENGbA has achieved one of its central aims, but our job is far from over. There are huge numbers of prisoners, many serving life sentences, who have been convicted under a law which the Supreme Court has acknowledged was a “wrong turn”. This judgement will offer new hope to them, to their families and their friends. We will fight to overturn every wrongful conviction.”

Simon Natas of ITN Solicitors, JENGbA’s lawyer said:

“This is a great day for justice. The Court unanimously ruled that the principle of liability based on foresight was fundamentally wrong; the product of an “incomplete and in some respects erroneous reading of the previous case law” which could not be justified on public policy grounds.  In short, the law was unfair, set the bar for conviction far too low and quite simply, did not work. The law was always indefensible, but now it has been confined to history. ”