JENGbA newsletter March - April 2016 Issue 38

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

JENGbA's Letter to Robert Neill MP, Chair of House of Commons Justice Select Committee, 6 April 2016

Mr Robert Neill
Chair Justice Select Committee
House of Commons
SW1A 0AA

6th April 2016

Dear Mr Neill

Thank you for attending JENGbA’s conference in the House of Commons in January when we launched the Manchester University & Centre for Crime and Justice Studies report on, “Dangerous Associations: Joint Enterprise, Gangs and Race.” I am sure you will agree it was a very important report and JENGbA welcomed the robust comments from the MP’s on the panel and those who attended. Lord Beith, your predecessor, in particular, was exceptionally outspoken about the concerns the previous Justice Select Committee had about joint enterprise charging, especially the overwhelming evidence of the disproportionate convictions of young men from ethnic minorities.

As you will be aware JENGbA’s years of campaigning have finally been vindicated by the Supreme Court decision on Feb 18th in R v Jogee when the Supreme Court Judges unanimously decided that the doctrine had been misinterpreted for 32 years since Chan Wing-Siu. JENGbA absolutely welcomes this decision, and we know that the years of campaigning as well as the two reports from the Justice Select Committee would have contributed to their decision that joint enterprise charging based on possible foresight was no longer tenable in our Justice System.

It is now of vital importance to understand what the Supreme Court did in this particular case, and this was to acknowledge that the law was not wrong and therefore did not need to be corrected, but that the actual courts interpretation of the law was wrong. It is this misinterpretation of the law that has been corrected not the substantive law itself. This is important because if it were the law itself that had been changed, then what the Supreme Court says about fresh appeals would be perfectly valid.

If people have been convicted of murder when as the law as it stood at the time they would not have been convicted of anything more than manslaughter, if even that, then surely an obvious miscarriage of justice has occurred and the courts should be keen to correct it.

It may be inconvenient for the court of appeal to have to clean up the mess left by previous courts, but if injustice has been caused then obviously that must be corrected.

Supreme Court said in paragraph 100 of the judgement,
“Where a conviction has been arrived at by faithfully applying the law as it stood at the time, it can be set aside only by seeking exceptional leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time. That court has power to grant such leave, and may do so if substantial injustice be demonstrated, but it will not do so simply because the law applied has now been declared to have been mistaken.”

JENGbA believe this is wide open to challenge. The interpretation of the law over the last thirty two years may have changed as a result of the decision in Chan Wing-Siu but the actual law itself did NOT change. So in that period the courts have NOT been “faithfully applying the law as it stood at the time”, they have been misinterpreting what the law always was in the first place.

However, if they did not think the ruling would open the floodgates for appeals they are wrong, we have a number of appeals that we think will be successful because of the correction, but sadly there will still be a huge number of prisoners where the 'foresight' ruling will not apply even though they we not the principal or in many cases at the scene (as with the Cohen brothers article attached.)

JENGbA would like advice on how we get a full independent inquiry into the years of abuse that have allowed people to be convicted, predominantly, though not exclusively, of murder or manslaughter based on virtually no evidence except that someone loosely associated to the principle should have/may have/could have ‘known’ what he/she might do. JENGbA does not accept that the law took a wrong turn, lawmakers including the police and CPS and the courts took a wrong turn, in charging people using joint enterprise precisely because they had no other evidence against them.

JENGbA is currently supporting 698 prisoners and if as ordinary members of the general public we recognised that this doctrine was leading to mass numbers of miscarriages of justice, something the previous Justice Select Committee agreed with because of the evidence before them in submissions, then it is only right and proper that a fuller investigation is made into police and charging decisions to find out the truth.

We believe that transparency is now key and therefore urge for a full independent inquiry so that prisoners who are serving mandatory life sentences for crimes they did not commit can have a full case review.

We would like a moratorium to be issued that no legal transcripts or documents from cases can be destroyed until this is done.

We want the CPS and police to hand over disclosure evidence that prisoners and legal teams have been trying to obtain for years. This is extremely important as the current climate for the miscarriage of justice world is loaded with obstacles and malfeasance. The CCRC are currently struggling to cope with the cases they have before them, we do not believe they will be able to do the investigative work needed to get to the 'truth' our prisoners so desperately need.

We would also urge that an inquiry is made on the life licence for prisoners who were not the principle, but were convicted of murder as a secondary party using joint enterprise. These are people who are now at liberty but living on the outside with a life time of restrictions.

There is also an important discussion to be had about Schedule 21, as mandatory sentencing is not something supported by the general public.

A further Inquiry into joint enterprise charges based on the overwhelming evidence that JENGbA has now gathered through our cases can only merit the full attention and support of Parliament and we would truly appreciate any advice from the Justice Committee or those MP's who have been supportive of JENGbA's campaign on how we take this important prison and human rights issue forward.

For information we have included an article by the Investigative journalist Bob Woffinden into a case of the Cohen brothers JENGbA have been supporting along with their families as a clear example of these exact obstacles and malfeasance prisoners seeking to right a miscarriage of justice are unable to overcome.

Yours sincerely

Gloria Morrison
Campaign Co-ordinator Joint Enterprise: Not Guilty by Association.

cc. Mr Andrew Mitchell MP, Mr Andrew Slaughter MP, Lord Alan Beith, Lord Herman Ouseley, Baroness Lola Young, Mr Stephen Pound MP, Mr Keir Starmer MP, Kate Osamor MP, Mr Jeremy Corbyn MP, Emily Thornberry MP, Sadiq Khan MP, David Davis MP, Gorden Marsden MP, John McDonnell MP, Diana Abbott MP, David Lammy MP, Dame Tessa Jowell, Baroness Neuberger, Lisa Nandy MP, Helen Jones MP, Baroness Jenny Jones, Lord Wolfe, Lord Ramsbottom, Baroness Joan Bakewell, Steve Rotheram MP, Oliver Dowden MP, John Pugh MP, Dominic Grieves MP, Andy Burnham MP, Yasmin Qureshi MP, Maria Eagle MP, Stephen Twigg MP.

'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