MOJUK: Newsletter 'Inside Out' 70
Paul Lyons - update - the Persecution Never Stops
On the morning of the 22nd of October, I came out of my cell, ready to go to the Court of Appeal in The Strand. Surprise, Surprise as I'm getting into the van, the screws tell me, it's not the Court of Appeal I'm going to but to Woolwich Crown Court, which is part of HMP Belmarsh, reason they said was because of security issues as I was a convicted prison rioter, (total bollocks, were they expecting me to smash my way out of the Court of Appeal).
Anyway, me and my two mates, (three of us are appealing) are finally ushered into court and sat down in front of a 12 foot high bullet proof screen, (which I think was to protect us from the Metropolitan Armed Response Unit) accompanied by 12 screws.
Our appeal was listed for four days but was over in two and a half. My legal team did a good job, they proved the facts we wanted. No decision was made on the day, we now have to wait it out.
So that's the situation, here I am stuck in a special unit, in limbo, pacing the cell floor like a caged lion, not knowing what's happening, not knowing when I will learn my fate.
If my wrongful conviction for conspiracy to commit murder is successful then I should be release immediately as my other sentences for GBH- escape- prison mutiny are all spent now.
So y'all appreciate I am a nervous wreck!
We are all aware how the state operates. So my feet are firmly on the ground and what ever the out-come I'll take it on the chin. It I get a positive result, I'll make contact with you all when I get outside - if it's negative - then the fight will continue.
Best regards to
all those out side and
the 'Hostages' inside,
Paul Lyons RP1464
Western Way, London, SE28 OEB.
A word from MOJUK:
Waiting for a decision to be handed down is the worst time for any 'Hostage' and contact from outside is more important than ever, so when y'all done reading this message, do send Paul a letter/postcard.
John O for MOJUK
Richard Roy Allan - gets a result at Strasbourg, or does he?
In Inside Out 59, MOJUK sent out a bulletin 'No Justice in the UK, is there Justice in Strasbourg?' on behalf of Richard Roy Allan.
Richard had taken his case to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, complaining of misbehaviour on the part of the police in obtaining evidence against Richard and asking for justice. Well it seems there is!, at least in Strasbourg, the Human Rights Court handed down their decision on Tuesday 5th November and said:
For these reasons, the court unanimously in the case of Richard Roy Allan v. the United Kingdom,
1. Holds that there have been violations of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the use of covert recording devices;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the admission at the applicant's trial of evidence obtained by use of the informer H.;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Now of course yall jump to the conclusion that Richard walks out the gate, nope, not this side of a direct appeal to the High Court or a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the same.
It is ridiculous that the highest court in Europe, can rule that a persons rights have been trampled on by the Government of the country they reside in but cannot order the quashing of the conviction they have held to have been wrongly obtained.
MOJUK, will be hoping to print a full statement from Richard as soon as he can post it out.
Meantime messages of solidarity/support to:
Richard Roy Allan, MC 1731, HMP Frankland, Brasside, DH1 5YD
Robert Brown - 'The Case That Jack Built'
Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, both in Scotland, England and Wales, are deeply disturbed by the lack of nationwide media coverage in relation to high profile cases, in particular the case of Robert Brown.
There is strong evidence that Robert Brown is at the present moment Britain's longest serving victim of a miscarriage of justice. Yet it would seem that because he is Scottish the story has been regionalised. This year alone two BBC Scotland documentaries have been broadcast explaining the story of Robert Brown, the most recent went out on the 29th of October, 'The Case That Jack Built' about the policeman who fitted Robert up. Yet no one in the BBC feels that this programme should be broadcast nationwide.
Robert Brown was fitted up by an English Police force
Convicted in an English court
Has spent 26 years in English prisons
On 13/14th of November will appear in front of the highest court in England.
Why then is this story only been told to a Scottish audience. This is a human rights issue that effects people in England, not Scotland, why then are people in England being refused the opportunity to see the corruption in their own land.
John McManus for MOJO Scotland
Serious and Dangerous Personality Disorder (DSPD): A political invention!!!
I understand that included in the Queen's speech shortly will be the government's proposals on people deemed to have Serious and Dangerous Personality Disorder (DSPD). I typed in '' prisoners with personality disorder'' onto the net and managed to download a 25 page Home Office document entitled'' A Feasibility Study into using a Randomised Controlled Trial to Evaluate Treatment Pilots at H.M.P. Whitemoor'' From what I have read it appears that 'Special Units' to deal with prisoners are to be available at HMP Frankland, HMP Broadmoor, and Rampton costing millions of pounds.
I am concerned that this could lead to prisoners falling out of the regular legal channels into the new domain of the forthcoming and updated Mental Health Act should they be diagnosed with SDPD by a prison psychologist/psychiatrist. I understand that it only takes 2 psychiatrists and 1 social worker to ''section'' someone. Before they know it they could be legally ''sectioned without time limit'' under the new proposals.
It is interesting to note how psychologists ''diagnose'' DSPD and in the Prison Special Units it will include prisoners who according to the Offending Behaviour Treatment Programmes (run by prison psychologists), are not responding to (their) ''Treatment''.
The new proposals should worry all of us who know that prisoners protests of innocence are seen by prison psychologists as '' prisoner delusions of innocence''. I understand that some prisoners are now facing a catch 22 situation - volunteer for the Special Unit, or stay static in too high a security category ever to be released by any future Parole Board.
My observations are that the Home Secretary was steeling himself for the possibility of losing his right to keep people in jail who were deemed suitable by the Parole Board. The Home Secretary may lose the House of Lords Case. Lifers with increased Tariffs could have them reduced to what was originally set by the trial judge, but what does it really mean for those are being held back in the system? Prisoners waiting for treatment courses that are according to the Prison Service ''voluntary'' are deemed by prison psychologists to pose a risk to the public, so kiss Parole goodbye.
As many prisoners have said *'' if you don't do the courses you don't progress and life is made difficult''.
The Government have spent millions of pounds on these units so naturally they will want to justify their existence, even though some psychiatrists see the scheme ''as a flawed political gesture and fear it will turn them from doctors into jailers''. (Guardian April 17th 2002).
The pending Reform of the Mental Health Act suggests that people with DSPD should be detained without time limit, and using that as a measure are we to see an increasing number of subsequently diagnosed already incarcerated people serving a Whole Life Tariff should the new powers contained in the Government proposals for the reform of the Mental Health Act become law?
According to Guardian columnist David Batty ''DSPD currently has no legal or medical basis and many doctors regard it as a political invention. A survey of nearly 1,200 psychiatrists published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2000 found almost two-thirds disagreed with the plan for detaining people with personality disorders, and almost a third said they might boycott it''.
However The Mental Health Act may be given the power to rob prisoners of hope for release in some cases in a ''back door fashion''. While prisoners will be given the right to appeal the appeal panel will no doubt be made up of psychiatrists. It is tempting to think back to the T.V. Documentary on Broadmoor earlier this year when one solicitor said '' The day that one client was due to be released from prison he was sent to Broadmoor on the basis that the he was suffering from a mental disorder that had according to the authorities been missed''. This translates to a potential Whole Life Tariff when a Whole Life Tariff was not imposed at trial. An overriding of the Trial Judges decision by the Mental Health Act it seems who effectively became the body to ''throw the key away''. By Karen Walsh, prison visitor
Josephine Smith - walks free after Conviction Quashed BBC News Online, 04/11/02
A woman jailed nine years ago for shooting dead her husband has walked free after her murder conviction was quashed at the Court of Appeal.
Josephine Smith claimed her husband was violent Josephine, now 40, was sentenced instead to 10 years for manslaughter, and was released from the cells at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Smith, a mother-of-three, shot her husband Brian as he slept at their home in Watlington near King's Lynn in Norfolk in July 1992.
Her counsel, Vera Baird QC, told the three appeal judges on Monday Smith had suffered years of "cumulative provocation" at her husband's hands.
Smith emerged from the cells carrying two large bin bags containing her belongings. She said: "My focus at the moment is to get back with my family"It has taken an awful long time but I'm very pleased with the result and I can only hope that other people get the support that I have had."
Following her release, she entered Court Five to hear the judges give their reasons for overturning the murder conviction.
Ms Baird had submitted four grounds of appeal, all based on the defence of provocation.
She said the judge had failed to sum up adequately the issue of provocation at Smith's trial.
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Hughes and Mr Justice Royce, also heard fresh psychiatric evidence.
The case was referred to the appeal court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which looks at alleged miscarriages of justice.
'Violent' husband: During Smith's trial, the prosecution refused to accept her plea of manslaughter on the grounds of provocation or diminished responsibility.
Smith claimed her husband had beaten her repeatedly, and had threatened to track her down if she ever left him. She also said he had made her watch pornographic videos and re-enact degrading sex acts.
The prosecution suggested she had invented and exaggerated the abuse.