| Testimony
of Karl Watson On
the night of 18 December 1991 the body of Mr Shippey was discovered
in the boot of his burnt out car. During the course of the polices investigation
I was arrested on suspicion of Murder, along with many others. I was
released when it was established that at the relevant times I had an
Alibi, either I was with police after being involved in a motorway crash
or I was with my family. In
September 1992 of the following year Bruce Cousins was arrested for
other crimes but the police question him over the murder of Mr Shippey.
At first he denied any knowledge of the crime but later he changed his
story after a search of his flat and the discovery of a 'script' in
which he stated that he was involved in the murder. He gave the police
another statement and was charged with the murder, he claimed that 'he
had been made to do it by Karl Watson'. When
I heard this accusation I cut short my family holiday and returned to
England. I contacted my solicitor and asked him to make arrangements
to surrender myself to the police to deal with the matter. The police
turned down the offer. Then in April I was arrested and charged with
the murder. At the same time the murder charge on Cousins was dropped. I
was convicted and sentenced with a recommendation that I serve a minimum
of 20 years. The case was based entirely on the evidence of Cousins.
At that time the police did tell my QC that in their opinion Cousins
had lied throughout his evidence and out of revenge I should give evidence
against Cousins. Shortly
after the conviction it became apparent that the Crown had failed to
disclose documentary evidence that directly undermined the credibility
of Cousins namely a psychological report which was prepared for the
CPS whilst Cousins was on remand in HMP Belmarsh hospital for the murder.
The CPS assured my defence that they had never had sight of this report,
so the defence took the view that a case of non-disclosure could not
be proved. An
Appeal was held based on new evidence, which was provided by four men
that Cousins had spent time with. They stated that Cousins had told
them fantastic stories and also that Watson was not the murderer. The
Appeal was predetermined as the judges retired for 2.45mins and then
came back with a judgement that would have taken at least three quarters
of an hour to type. Basically, the Lord Chef Justice stated that the
witnesses testimony lacked credibility because "each of the witnesses
was at the relevant time not only in prison but in a prison hospital
which does not always give the greatest encouragement to the view that
they will be reliable witnesses" Throughout Cousins 11 months remand
he was held in the same prison hospitals. Common sense would dictate
that following judges reasoning, the credibility of Cousins evidence
must also be questionable, but the fact that the crowns witness was
a patient was not disclosed to the my defence or for the benefit of
the jury. In July 1997 a submission to the CCRC was submitted. This submission
was based on new evidence that confirmed that the CPS had misled or
lied to the defence when it stated that they had not had any knowledge
of the Psychological report on Cousins and had failed to disclose to
the defence. The defence had come into possession of another report
from Dr O'Bryne who was employed at HMP Belmarsh to the CPS dated 3
February 1993. The psychiatrist report states that she was very concerned
that Mr Cousins may be easily led in terms of statements and would have
a major bearing on his case". The reason for her writing this report
was to seek CPS authorisation for a psychological assessment of Mr Cousins.
This document had two CPS stamps on it that proved without doubt that
they had knowledge of Cousins condition. This
report was authorised and on the 17th March 1993 a report was prepared
by Psychologist Jackie Craissati The report was opened by stating "This
report is prepared for the Crown Prosecution Service". As a result
of her clinical tests Ms Craissati states "This indicates that
his anxiety is such, that he will change nearly all his answers, regardless
for his memory for the facts". It is hard to imagine a more devastating
assessment of someone as a witness, is it coincidence that this report
is faxed to the Crown shortly by the murder charge against Cousins was
dropped providing he give QE testimony against me. Cousins
statements would have been inadmissible if the crown had pursued the
murder case against Cousins, certainly the reports would have become
public knowledge. Obviously,
had the Watson defence known of this material they would have been able,
for example; to call expert witnesses to undermine Cousins, or they
could have made an application to challenge the admissibility of Cousins
evidence, or utilised the material to cross-examine Cousins. All of
which should have been adduced by the jury, as is the correct process
of Law, instead the Crown acted as judge and jury in their own cause. Repeatedly,
my defence made it clear that they would require a copy of the trial
transcript to enable them to present a full and proper submission based
on fact and not guess work. This is the recognised stance taken by the
European Courts, the House of Lords and the Appeal Court, who each state
that to judge the relevance of new evidence that material has to be
in context to the transcript of the trial. Evidence without context
is ambiguous at best. Predictably
despite the assurances of the CCRC in 1997 that all relevant documentation
was being secured it later transpired that efforts were not made until
September 1999, by which time all copies of the trial transcript had
been destroyed. We were told this on 30th October 2000, six weeks after
the CCRC decision to reject our application. The question that begs
an answer is, if all the higher courts and the defence require a trial
transcript to judge the relevance of new evidence, then how did the
CCRC possibly make a reasoned decision with no knowledge, at all, of
the trial? After all it is the 'trial process' that I am challenging. Even
the trial judge felt it necessary to refer to the trial transcript during
her summing-up stating "again we will, I think, need the transcript
at some stage". This was after the jury had just heard the evidence
in fact the judge referred to the transcript in excess of 20 times for
the juries benefit that is recorded. Imagine the substantial disadvantage
the new defence had been in ten years on, the CCRC must be clairvoyant. The
second CCRC application, drew the commissions attention to their lack
of diligence during their previous 'review' and that there were a number
of witnesses that the police had interviewed but they had neglected
to disclose to the Watson defence. One witness was interviewed at his
house. He gave little if no evidence that was of help to the prosecution
but gave evidence which would have been of great assistance to the defence,
seriously undermining Cousins credibility. The police told him that
they were very busy so they would return the following week to take
a statement, they never returned. He did get a visit just before the
trial and was told not to get involved. This man was later confronted
by Cousins after the trial and Cousins told him 'it was him or me, I
had no choice... the police said it was him so it must have been...
I didn't set him up, they wanted it to be him. He smiled, then said,
it suits me' and walked off. At a later date Cousins and another pursued
this man in a car and ran him off the road. Another
witness was named by Cousins as being involved but to a lesser degree.
The police took him into a port-a-cabin behind a police station to intimidated
him and threaten him with imprisonment if he didn't help. His interview
again undermined Cousins credibility, at a later date his property was
searched demonstrating the polices interest. Yet this material was never
disclosed to my defence. In
June 2002 the CCRC sent a copy of the trial judges summing up, the importance
of the question of Cousins suggestibility, as indicated by the non-disclosed
reports, becomes more apparent. On page 79 G-H, Judge Nina Lowry stated,
'This was all agreed with suggestions put (to Cousins by counsel). /
Then the judge stated 'This is really the words of counsel which he
(Cousins) adopts. Would the judge have made such comments if she had
sight of the reports, at the very least she would have felt compelled
to comment on suggestibility and it's relevance. The
applicant finds a reference to another Psychiatric report that has not
been disclosed, again it appears that DC Edwards is involved as this
report was sent direct to him from Cousins solicitor in March 95. In
August 2002 the CPS sent this document, dated 9th December 1992, following
my request, it stated 'Cousins is an extremely vulnerable individual
with low IQ and few coping strategies... he is requiring a high dose
of anti-depress ants'. This is at the time that the deal was done with
the police and CPS. This
case needs a proper independent investigation as there are also various
other matters that the police had failed to disclose to the defence Following
a complaint to the CCRC over their indifference and or negligence which
resulted in the destruction of the trial transcript, they informed me
that despite being a publicly funded body they are not bound by ECHR
Article 6, the right to a fair hearing but though it does not apply
to me, in future they will secure the trial transcripts! Is that supposed to make me feel better? Be
glad to hear from anyone in the system,
Karl Watson Karl
Watson |