Anthony Patrick Nolan wrongly jailed in 1998 died in prison December 2009

Anthony had always protested his innocence and kept fighting over the years, he was found dead in his cell just three days before Christmas The press release from the *Ministry of Justice is bland & and does not tally with the phone calls MOJUK has had from prisoners in HMP Kingston, who more than suspect that prison negligence, contributed to Anthony's death.

Anthony felt strongly that the British Justice system had failed him, he wrote in 2003, "One explanation may be the fact that I am of Irish origin and we know how the Irish community have in the past suffered at the hands of British injustice."

We do not know if or where/when the funeral will take place as we do not have any contacts for Anthony's family/friends.

Hopefully the prisoners in HMP Kingston will peace together, what happened in the preceding hours/days before his death and will let those outside the truth, we will post any hard information when we can.

John O for MOJUK
mojuk@mojuk.org.uk

*["HMP Kingston prisoner Anthony Patrick Nolan (DOB 23/08/1960) was discovered in his cell at 8.15am on Tuesday 22 December. Prison staff tried to resuscitate Mr Nolan, but he was pronounced dead at 11.14am. The cause of death is not yet known.

"As with all deaths in custody, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman will conduct an investigation." Ministry of Justice | Creating a safe, just and democratic society]

Statement of Anthony Patrick Nolan

On the 4th July 1998, I was arrested at a Hostel in north London.

I was informed that I was been arrested in connection with a fatal shooting which had occurred on the 2nd of July less than 100 yards from my mothers address at Kentish Town. My arrest came as the result of a statement from one person who had told the police that he had witnessed me walking away from the victim with my right arm outstretched at shoulder height and that it was in his mind I had shot his friend. When he was later asked if he had witnessed the shooting or had he seen the gun, he replied "No".

This in comparison to other witness testimonies would have made it practically impossible for him not to have, at the very least, seen the gun, which had been fired in his friends face.

The victim had been shot once in the head with a handgun and subsequently died on the 6th of July 1998 four days after the incident.

He had been in the company of a mend named Gideon Tsagane who lived opposite my mothers address and who named me as the culprit.

On the morning of the day in question, the victim (Paddy Delaney) had called to another friend who lived next door to my mother but could not get a reply.

Mr Tsagane claimed that Delaney had whistled up to his window and asked if he had seen another neighbour, Rodney Hayter. Tsagane claimed that he was aware that Mr Hayter didn't answer the door to certain people and volunteered to knock at thc Haytcr household in the hope that he would get an answer. He told the police that he had no idea why Mr Delaney wanted to see Mr Hay1er. Despite this statement, he had been asked earlier in the police interview when he had last seen the victim prior to the shooting and he had replied, "about two weeks ago, he had been looking for a guy who he had lent his kids bike to and he was trying to get the bike back, he did mention the name of the guy but, I can't remember his name". The 'guy' he was referring to, was Rodney Hayter, Gideon Tsaganes best friend.

This was the first in a series of what can only be a complete fabrication of the facts that occurred on the fatal day in question. Mr Tsagane went on to explain his version to the police. He told them that he also got no response from Rodney's home and Mr Delaney had suggested that they go to the local off-licence where Mr Delaney Purchased a can of beer for each of them. On leaving the off-licence, Mr Delaney had supposedly given Tsagane two five pence pieces and asked him to go back into the off-licence and get him a ten pence piece as he wanted to make a telephone call. Tsagane told the police he had no idea who Delaney wanted to phone. He went on to say that he had gone back into the off:' licence but there was a long queue and people 'wasting time' so, he went into a Chinese supermarket next door.    

He continued by claiming that no sooner had he reached the counter and asked for the change; he had heard a bang from outside and immediately knew that Mr Delaney had been shot.

 told the shopkeeper to phone the police as his friend had been shot. He said that he could see the victims' legs sprawled out on the pavement outside the shop. He then claimed that he had ran out of the door a second after the report and that he had seen me walking away making the gesture with the right arm outstretched at shoulder height.

He claimed that I was five yards away nom the body of Mr Delaney. The shopkeepers' account was very different to that of Tsaganes. He said in a statement (and in open court) that Tsagane had entered the shop asking for change, when there was a bang. He had told the shopkeeper to phone the police and, he, Tsagane, had staved in the shop until the gunman had calmly walked out of sight at a normal pace. He also said that Tsagane had pointed to the gunman and said, "That's the chips man, I didn't think he would do it."

The only question the police asked him in reference to these comments were what he meant by the term 'chips man'. Tsagane replied that the storekeeper was Chinese and he didn't speak English very well and he might have said something like "its shit man", and the storekeeper mistook it for the (chips man remark) They did not ask him about the other comment as it could not be mistaken for anything other than what it sounded like to the shopkeeper and that being, (I did not think he would do it.) This would suggest that Tsagane had prior knowledge that somebody intended to cause Mr Delaney harm.

According to Mr Cesista, and another independent witness people began to emerge when the gunman had completely left the scene. Tsagane had stayed with the injured man until he heard the police sirens approaching but then left the scene claiming that he did so in order to show the ambulance driver the spot where his friend lay dying.

There are no statements from the emergency services to verify this.

It was claimed by another witness (who later became the hub of the cr0wns case against me) that Tsagane took two five-pound notes nom the hands of the man on the ground before fleeing.

As stated, Tsagane lived opposite my mothers address and he admitted going straight to that addrcss whcn he flcd the scene. Whilst at his mothers' home, he changed clothes and put the ones he had been wearing
 
He told the police that he finished his shift about 23.00hrs and went to the crime scene, which was literally 100 yards tram where he lived.

A statement from D.L Yvonne Brown, (who was behind the police cordon) states categorically that see noticed a mixed race male, who fitted the description from witnesses at the scene of the crime as that of the male seen with the victim. She said that he was watching what they were doing and so she called him over.

She says in that statement that she asked him who he was and that he was reluctant to answer. He eventually told .her that he had been with the victim but did not want to stand around talking to her in the locality and so she brought him to Kentish town Police Station. It was en-route to the police station that Tsagane put my name forward as been the man who he believed shot the victim. D.L Brown gave two different accounts as to how Tsagane came to her attention on the night he was seen outside the cordon. At my first trial, the defence suggested that Tsagane had not volunteered himself to the police, thus using the evidence of D.l.Browns first account to place doubt on the veracity of Tsaganes statements. The
jury in that hearing could not reach a verdict. The second trial began and D.I.Brown now said in evidence that she had got out of a police car at the crime scene and Tsagane was already behind the cordon speaking to D.C.LCateI'. This went unnoticed by all at my second trial, despite me sending a note to my barrister to remind him of her previous testimony.

Exactly what took place at the police station after Tsagane became known to the police has never been explored but it is a known fact that when Mr Tsagalle was asked to provide firearms residue tests he blatantly refused claiming that he had not been near the gun. He also refused to give intimate samples (Blood and Saliva).

He informed the police that he did not wish to stay at the p0lice station any longer as he was tired and wanted to go home. Despite claiming that he had ran from the scene of the crime because he knew that I had seen him and he was scared that I may come looking for him, he had no quibbles about going back to his mothers address nor any fear of claiming to have visited Mr Hayters home on the following day let alone hanging around in the dead of night watching what the police were doing.

The police drove him to his home and waited outside while he went in to get the clothes he had been wearing at the time of the shooting. He came back with a completely different set of clothes to those that were in the wash and handed them to the police saying that they were the ones he had on at the time. Needless to say, none of this evidence came out at trial.
Other discrepancies in his statement consist of lying about his movements on the morning of the shooting by claiming that he spent some time at his ex-girlfriends home yet we have a statement from her saying that she does not let him in and that he had called in the evening after the incident and not in the morning like he claimed.

Despite all these controversies, the police did not cross-examine him on any of the irregularities that they could not have missed as he only made two statements.

It has since been suggested that Tsagane was a paid informant for the police and this is why he had been initially believed.

After a police raid on his mothers' premises in 1997, the police found crack paraphernalia (blow torch, burnt foil, etc.) he admitted to making Crack Cocaine rocks but did not sell them. Despite these admissions, he received a caution for cannabis.

It is now obvious that Tsagane was involved in the making and dealing in crack cocaine, and that Mr Delaney's Murder was drug related. The wife o[Mr Delaney told police that the only reason that her husband would have been where he was when he was shot would have been to acquire crack.

Another witness to the event of the 2nd July was an electrician who had been working in the vicinity. His van was situated in a loading bay and from his vantage point he claims that nobody could have possibly seen what he himself had witnessed.

He said he had been filling out a work sheet when he looked up for no apparent reason and saw two men walking toward him. He gave the best description of all witnesses as he had a head on view of the gunman and the victim.
    
He said one man was smartly dressed in a blue suit, and the other was of a scruffy appearance. I was allegedly the man in the suit.

He went on to explain in his statement that the man in the suit raised his right hand up to the other persons head, and shot him at point blank range. He claimed that the gunman didn't seem fazcd by anything, and described him as being as calm as a cucumber.

He then told the police how the gunman had tried to put the gun into his waistband but seemed to have difficulty in doing so. Instead, the gunman swapped the gun from his right hand to the left hand, pulled one side of his jacket open and placed the gun into an inside pocket.

He said he then turned, and walked down a supermarket ramp at a normal pace. He also claimed that people began to emerge only after the gunman had left the scene. He recalls an elderly woman at the scene who tendcd to the victim, and he was of the opinion that she was drunk.

This woman was later to testify in court that I was the man that was responsible for the shooting of the victim as she had seen me arguing with him while she was going into the same off-licence that Mr Delaney and Tsagane had not long left.

Her statement that she made shortly after the shooting described how she had entered the off-licence and had got to the counter when she heard a loud bang. She said that she left the premises and had seen the victim laying bleeding on the ground some way further up the parade of shops.

She said, she went to the victim and with some difficulty; she bent down to tend to him. She mentioned that she walks using a stick. As she looked up, she said she had seen a man running off down the supermarket ramp at speed, at sixty yards through trees, and she only seen him from the back.

She made another fuller statement the following day and again mentioned the man who she saw running away. Again she stated, "It's the back view I got". At that point she had stated to police that she had not seen the running mans face for the second time.
    
When I was arrested on the 4th July, I was still in the clothes that I had been wearing on the day that Mr Delaney had been shot.
    
The arresting officer was confident that they had the suit, which Tsagane had described me as wearing tor sometime, as there were very little other clothes I possessed apart from a few pairs of jeans. The suit he described me in was not a suit as such; it was a dark jacket, and trousers, which were not matched and was not navy blue.
    
On my arrial at Collingdale police station, these clothes were taken away from me to be analyzed. I was given a duty solicitor from Hendon, and he advised me strongly to make no comment whatsoever.

We were given disclosure of three witnesses, namely, the van driver, the store owner and, Gideon Tsagane.

The interviewing officers told me that they had three people who could identify me. One man named me as the gunman, another could identify me, and the third could say what I did with the gun after I supposedly shot the victim.
    
During interviews I was asked if was willing to stand on an identification parade and I agreed to do so through the duty solicitor.

A transcript of Gidcon Tsaganes statement was read to me where he had identified me to the police the day after the shooting when I had returned to my mothers flat tor the toys I had left behind on the previous day.

It had apparently came to the attention of the police that Tsagane had given them the wrong clothes and they had called to his mothers address to ask him for the ones he had been wearing on the 2nd.

I had been knocking on my mothers' door relentlessly begging her lo give me my kid's toys through the window but she believed me to be drunk and would not answer the door or pass the toys out.
 
In my frustration I began to kick the door. My mother came out of the house and went into the main road. I entered her flat and took the toys along with other small items I had left there. As I came out of my mothers flat, Tsagane emerged from the dustbin area, which is between 12 Lenham, my mothers' address, and, 11 Lenham, Mr Hayters address.

We acknowledged each other, and that was that.

I then proceeded to go the opposite way to which my mother had taken to avoid any more embarrassment, and walked to the end of the block.
    
I then realized that there were a few more things I had left at her flat and made my way back.
    
On collection of these items, I left and went the same way my mother had gone, as it was the quickest route to my female friend's home.

Once on the street, I noticed a crowd of people, including my mother, on the opposite side of the road. I ignored them and walked toward the market passing the area where the man had been shot on the previous day.

I later discovered that there were several plain-clothes police officers in the crowd and Tsagane had informed DJ. Brown that I was "Paddy Nolan" the one they were looking for. He also told them that I was wearing the same clothes. They were the clothes I was arrested in the following day at the Camden Hostel.

I also discovered at a later date that Tsagane had made an amendment to his first statement regarding the 3rd July and the police calling to ask him for the right clothes. In that statement he claimed that he had just been over visiting Mr Hayter, the neighbour of my mother, and he had came. out of the flat and seen me leaving my mothers. He said to the police that I had told him I wanted a word with him. This is totally untrue. He did not leave Hayters address; he emerged from the refuse area between the flats. For some reason, the police had witnessed me walk past them whilst they radioed for an armed response unit, and they sent them into my mothers home knowing that I had gone toward the market.

Because of any danger to the residents in the flats, the police knocked on the doors and told them to remain in their premises until the area was deemed sate. They knocked on the door of Rodney Hayter, and took a statement trom him and a friend who was with him during the search at 12 Lenham. This friend was Andrew O'Brien and both men fail to mention anything about Tsagane just leaving the flat.

There is no mention of him being there at all. Further more. the police didn't even bother to inquire why Tsaganc had given yet another false account of his movements at such a crucial time and regarding an extremely serious crime. He was simply allowed to lie, and lie, and lie to police officers who were either too incompetent to notice these blatant inconsistencies, too stupid to understand that they were been duped or, and, they were only too happy to accept that I was guilty and therefore
 there was no need for an investigation. These failings by the police to even put the records straight only add to the suspicion that Tsagane was indeed a police informant.    .

Within the blinking of an eye, I'm arrested on Saturday, charged on Sunday, and remanded in custody on Monday. On Wednesday the 9th July, I'm taken from Brixton Prison to an identification suite at Kilburn North London, where I've agreed to stand on parade knowing I have nothing to worry about because I did not shoot Mr Delaney so the possibility of me being picked out as the culprit does not enter the equation. I have given the police intimate samples of blood, hair and saliva, I have had my nostrils probed with swabs as well as my ears, I have had my skin rubbed with a special chemical formula, I have been arrested in the same clothes that I had on for the few days. Beneath my nails have been scraped and the inside of my mouth likewise.

Every single item of clothing, bedding, towels and woolly socks have been taken away to be forensically tested.

I am then informed by my solicitor that I have been positively identified, as been the man who shot Mr Delaney between the eyes on The 2nd July 1998.

I know now that I am been fitted up big time. How on earth can any honest person place an innocent man in a position where he will forfeit his life long freedom for a cash reward? I can't believe that one of these blokes has been got at. Their statements were read to me in the interviews, how can any of them say that I was responsible for the shooting. I returned to Brixton Prison in a state of total disbelief

That disbelief turned to outrageous breaches of my judicial rights when I eventually discovered that the so called identifying witness was an old woman who claimed to having seen the culprit running away at speed and not even seeing the face of that person. At the time I agreed to stand on an identification parade I had no knowledge of her existence let alone her first description.

I was given no disclosure whatsoever in regards to this crackpots version of events tor the simple reason, that the police must have been in a similar mind as Mr Smith (The Electrician) that she had one too many and her account did not touch upon the version of events given by the other three witnesses.

Mr Smith and Mr Cesista had not identified any person on the parade that day, so one D.C.!. Cater sent a car to collect the old woman who had lived on the same esl.ate as my mother for thirty years, and decided that she should view the parade. Her description read, Short back and sides, blue suit. The crucial fact that she had mentioned twice that she did not sec the face of the running man had been deliberately omitted from that first description. She than made a further statement where she claimed that she didn't think to mention the face in her first statement. (What else could she possibly expect them to want her to describe.) Her reason for not describing the face previously was that she had not witnessed anything like this before (and that is understandable) but it defies alJ logic that out of all the witnesses, the one who sees a man running away at sixty yards, through trees and from the back later states that she had seen the gunman and the victim arguing as she was going into the off-licence, when Mr Tsagane who is in and (apparently) out of the shop he enters for change, in seconds and does not see, hear nor mention anything about me and the victim arguing.

If Mr Smith has seen the two men approaching him full on than the old woman would have only had a back view of a man walking away from her, and Tsagane would have definitely seen the two men side by side so, why has he not mentioned any of this in his statement? Equally interesting, is the fact that the police did not even ask Mr Tsagane about this so called argument taking place.

It wasn't long before the forensics came back and they were negative. Nothing belonging to me had the slightest iota of evidence to suggest that I was directly, or otherwise involved in the murder.

The crown had no gun, no forensics, no motive, and on the face of it, they had no evidence to even have charged me in the first instance.

Rumours spread throughout Kentish Town that there was no evidence against me other than an old alcoholic with a lengthy criminal record and a lying police informer who's combined stories did not correspond. It went around the area that I was going to 'walk'.

The police were still ignorant to the obvious fact that Tsaganes statement contained many lies which were going to be questioned at trial but four days before my trial began, Tsagane was shot three times in the back, and once in the head with the same gun that was used in the murder of Mr Delaney.

Darryl Ingram's solicitors of Hendon represented me and subsequently got me a life sentence through sheer incompetence. The Q.C. who was meant to represent me dropped out, thus I had two trials in eight days with a barrister representing me on a capital offence. To say he proved to be incompetent would be polite under the circumstances. The original
judge who was to hear the case also dropped out and Margaret Swallow became the crowns only witness. She lied my life away and the jury accepted her impossible account and convicted me unanimously in the time it takes to cook a hot meal. Every legal eagle in the court tailed to notice that this old woman had been brought to an LD. Parade illegally,
and her original testimony of not seeing the culprits face had been omitted.
 
In 2002 I had an appeal based on the non-disclosure, and the three judges failed to answer the questions put to them fairly or otherwise.

My appeal was dismissed after a draught judgement was deliberated in a cleaver and evasive manner.

I sought to find a remedy to the failings of the British Justice system in the E.C.H.R. but had no help from any legal advisers in drafting my grounds to that court in order to meet the dead line of six months from the last judicial decision in the u.K.
    
That appeal was rejected without reasons or an appeal against the Courts decision.

My arrest and trials in England were no more than a farce, and I do not ask for justice weather that be in the form of a re-trial or a judicial review,

I demand it as my fundamental right.

If the police can bring to an identification parade a witness that has not even seen the face of a suspect, where does that leave the average person in a democratic society, and what hidden powers do the court judges allow the police to use in order to secure a conviction on such flimsy evidence as was used to take my feedom away for the best part of the rest of my life.

I am an example of a corrupt system. You can rest assured that there will be more cases of this nature coming to the attention of corrupt Appeal Judges who show a flagrant disregard for the written laws and codes of practice and will willow their way around solid legal arguments to keep incompetent or bent police officers in the force.

As if the identification parade procedures were not in breach with the non-disclosure of the witness they brought before the parrde, it was further confounded when at trial, the old woman claimed to seeing Tsagane leaving the suite as she was going in. the court asked if she was sure that it was him and she replied "yes, I actually spoke to him" the crown conceded that this could not have happened and she was confused.

She also said that she and Tsagane had run together to the injured man while I was running away from the scene. She claimed that he held the door of the off-liccnce open for her as she was entering, and that is when she heard the gunshot. Again the crown said that this could not be the case as it was well established that Tsagane was in the supermarket next door at the time of the shooting. The tact of the matter is that this elderly alcoholic with the criminal record was allowed to lie in the court and it went unchallenged. Ironically, the barrister who represented me became a Q. C. shortly after my trials and is now part of the legal team who will be representing Saddam Hussein. It will be interesting to see how professional he will be at that hearing?
 
I believe that he was ordered to make very poor work in his defence in order to strengthen the very weak evidence against me that even a law student would have made a meal of.

After my conviction the BBC Rough Justice got me back to the Appeal Court but they failed to bring to question certain officers who should have given live evidence.

This is not to say that they did not do their job properly as the Q.C. who wrote up the grounds covered almost all the issues pertaining to the non¬disclosure of first descriptions by witnesses, and in truth he done a fantastic job;

They failed however, to mention further evidence relating to a police raid on the neighbour of my mother two years into my conviction.

The warrant was issued after police believed that Mr Rodney Hayter was in possession of a gun, which had been used in two murders. When asked if that gun was the one used to murder Delaney and Tsagane, the investigating officer replied, "Yes, the gun that Nolan was supposed to have shot Delancy with".
    
Although this gun was not found at the home of Mr Hayter, the police found a sawn-off shotgun behind a radiator for which he was charged.

I am not suggesting that Mr Hayter was responsible for the death of Delaney but I believe that he had some knowledge of who may have been responsible through his association with Mr Tsagane.

There are too many discrepancies involved in my conviction for it to be deemed safe and the Draft Judgement fom the Court of Appeal tailed to remedy many of those Discrepancies by either not answering them at all, or relying on the tact that I agreed to stand on an identification parade. Let it be known, that I have agreed to stand on a parade for a witness that I have no knowledge of her existence, and be it known that that witness has twice stated to the police that she has not seen the face of the culprit. Given the disclosure, I was tricked if that were the case. In an industrial world, such tactics would be covered by the trade descriptions act. In this case it should have been (P.A.C.E.) Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

Would it not have been fairer of the Crown to have approached me with a white-hot poker after telling me to drop my trousers or confess?

Many campaigners for so-called miscarriages of justice harp on about the possibility of cross contamination where a microbe of evidence has been found upon the suspects clothing and that the witness testimonies do not tally. There was no microscopic evidence found on any of the many items taken from my mother's home and the Hostel where I had briefly stayed. The only person who places me at the crime scene before any other person is called to view a parrade was Gideon Tsagane. His statement cannot, be true. If on the other hand his word is to be taken as gospel, than Margaret Swallows testimony cannot be true.

I ask that an independent arbitrator examine the statements of these two people and decide who is more likely to be (in the words of trial judge) trying to tell the truth?

Anthony Patrick Nolan

Anthony Nolan
BX7158
HMP Kingston
Milton Road
Portsmouth, PO3 6AS