Miscarriages of JusticeUK

Framed By Friends…Cheated By The Justice System!!!!    (Posted Friday 12th October 2012)

Justice For The Bradford Three

Mohammed Niaz Khan, Abid Ashiq Hussain, Sharaz Yaqub

An Overview of the Case
Shazad Hussain, who was 21 at the time, was shot twice at close range through the window of his Honda Civic as he sat in the vehicle in an alleyway between Amberley Street and Gladstone Street in the Leeds Road area of Bradford early on September 25, 2004.

The first shot shattered the driver's window and injured Mr Hussain in the right arm. The second shot hit him in the chest, killing him.

Eye Witnesses at the time of the murder described events in Amberley Street around the time of the murder.

One reported seeing two white women passengers in a Mitsubishi Shogun, one in the front with shoulder length ginger hair, and another in the back with long dark hair. The car had its engine running and lights switched off and was parked on the right of Amberley Street, facing away from Leeds Road. The car was two to three years old and dark in colour. It rear spare wheel had a cover with a large red letter K on it, with five or six white letters to the right.

When the vehicle's alarm activated the girls were heard screaming and there was the sound of running footsteps and a girl's voice saying: 'What have you done to him, Bob?' and another girl saying: 'Run, run, Robert.' The witness heard a man saying something like: 'Just wait, I'll bring my cassette'.

According to Detective Supt Brennan, the leading officer at the time, another witness heard two shots being fired and women's voices saying: 'Run Bob, run Robert'. Two women were seen running towards Durkheim Court, one with loose, short, dark hair, 5ft 4in to 5ft 5in, possibly wearing a dark denim jacket or coat.

A car was heard speeding off but the witness did not see the women get into a vehicle. A car alarm was also heard sounding.

Yet another person, describing the same event, heard a man say words to the effect of: 'I am just going to get the tape,' the officer added.

What happened next?
Well the people described by many eye witnesses at the time of the murder were never traced or should I say no attempts were made. This is because police arrested Mohammed Niaz Khan along with his co-defendants shortly after due their names been given by certain members of the public.

At that point it appears that police had decided it was them and so did not even attempt to focus their investigations elsewhere, i.e. perhaps if they had followed up eye witness testimony who knows what they would have found?

Anyway, although they were initially arrested the Crown Prosecution Service had No Evidence that met the criteria to charge them with Murder. Of course, they wouldn't have because these men were innocent people. As a result they were released without charge.

So what changed? It was after nearly two years of further investigation when the police still could not find the killers that a few witness statements surfaced. Since there was no tangible evidence against them - Neither Forensic Nor Eye Witnessess - police found a few misguided souls who either held a grudge or who were going to benefit from their incarceration and as a result 'The Bradford Three' were convicted to life imprisonment in July 2007 for a crime they did not commit.

These witness statements should have and would have been rendered worthless no doubt had the law of hearsay not have been introduced in 2006. Perhaps the police were waiting for this and so subsequently 'The Bradford Three' were convicted due to these witness statements based on hearsay under the Joint Enterprise Law.

Victims of A Grave Miscarriage of Justice
The Bradford Three were convicted under the controversial Joint Enterprise Law. Mohammed Niaz Khan was convicted Primarily On Hearsay Evidence.

- Phone evidence shows Mohammed Niaz Khan was not at the murder scene at the time of the murder.

- His co-defendants were also nowhere near the scene.

- No DNA/Forensic against Mohammed Niaz Khan and Sharaz Yaqub.

- No eyewitness testimony linking Mohammed Niaz Khan, Abid Hussain and Sharaz Yaqub at the scene of the crime.

- False statements given against Mohammed Niaz Khan by: - Mazhar Iqbal and his brother Adnan Ahmed

- Mazhar Iqbal clearly benefited from their incarceration. He was caught with 20 kilos of Class A drugs and was therefore in serious trouble as he was looking at a lengthy term of imprisonment, between 15 to 20 years. By fabricating a mendacious tale of their apparent confessions in relation to the murder of Shazad Hussain, and assisted in this task by his brother Adnan Ahmed, Mazhar Iqbal was rewarded handsomely and was given a paltry sentence of only five years.

- Basharat Wali and his girlfriend Samantha Harpin

- Mohammed Niaz Khan has never met or heard of Basharat Wali. We can only assume he was manipulated by whomever in giving a false statement. His girlfriend Samantha Harpin later disassociated herself from the conspiracy.

- Retractions had then been made by some witnesses after having a change of heart. Guilty Consciences no doubt!

- Credibility of these witnesses was never questioned.

Mohammed Niaz Khan's account is of this below:

Solicitor Cleared of Wrongdoing

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/4554991.Solicitor_is_cleared/

Although brothers Mazhar Iqbal and Adnan Ahmed had initially given statements they later had a change of heart and retracted them. Obviously the police would not be too happy about this so of course they would resort to bully boy tactics. Whilst Mazhar Iqbal showed the resolve to withstand pressure from the police and stick to his retraction, Adnan Ahmed capitulated and told yet another lie. This time he said that it was Mohammed Niaz Khan's solicitor, Rashid Majid, who had forced him into making a retraction.
As a result, the solicitor was charged for perverting the course of justice. Nevertheless, justice prevailed and the solicitor was UNANIMOUSLY cleared of any wrongdoing by the jury.
The jury found the solicitor Not Guilty! What does this mean? Doesn't this mean that witness Adnan Ahmed was proved a LIER?! Therefore shouldn't the credibility of Adnan Ahmed accusing the solicitor of wrongdoing have been questioned?

Yes, Adnan Ahmed's testimony would certainly have been discredited no doubt by the jury in 'The Bradford Threes' trial had the solicitors case had been tried before theirs. In addition, other evidence as a result would have also been severely been undermined too. Unfortunately, the damage to 'The Bradford Three' by that time had already been done as they had already been convicted and leave to appeal had been rejected. It would have made more sense for the solicitors trail to have been tried before 'The Bradford Three's trial but it kept being put off and delayed. Perhaps the police too were aware that if it had taken place beforehand then Adnan Ahmed's testimony would have automatically been discredited in 'The Bradford Threes' trial and the jury would have questioned other witness testimonies also.

These witnesses were unreliable as can be seen and as was proved in Adnan Ahmed's case and so this issue really needs to be revisited and addressed as it is a clear injustice to the 'The Bradford Three.'

Ask yourself how reliable is hearsay evidence? How credible is the testimony of a known drug dealer cutting deals with the police? How credible and reliable is a witness who retracts his original statement and then retracts his retraction?

Police Corruption! Murder-probe Detective charged with 'dishonesty'
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/4564791.Murder_probe_detective_charged_over__dishonesty_/
A Detective Constable, involved in the case, made the most shocking revelation when he came forward and admitted that he had fabricated evidence due to having been pressurised into misconduct by his superiors. As a result, he was charged with offences relating to the production of a false document- linked to statements made during the investigation.

He was due to stand trial but charges were subsequently dropped since it would not have been in the public interest to have proceeded. No, in actual fact this was a cover up as a prosecution here would have been damaging not only to those superiors but to the police force in general. Besides, the truth here would have severely undermined the safety of 'The Bradford Three's' wrongful convictions.

So to reiterate, no forensic evidence against Mohammed Niaz Khan and Sharaz Yaqub, no eye witness testimony linking Mohammed Niaz Khan and his co-defendants to the scene of the crime, Primarily False Statements Made By Unreliable Witnesses! This case is in urgent need of review as there are three innocent men facing life in prison for a crime they did not commit whilst the real killers are out there somewhere. YOUR SUPPORT IS NEEDED!

If anyone has ANY information that could help prove their innocence please contact:-

Bowden Jones Solicitors
Huw Bowden
22 Park Place,
Cardiff 
CF10 3DQ

Tel: 029 2048 4550, Emergency Tel 07771568525,
Email: Enquiries@bowdenjones.co.uk

hbowden@bowdenjones.co.uk

All information will be treated with strict confidentiality. Thank you.

You can send an Email of Support/Solidarity direct to Mohammed Niaz Khan at HMP Long Lartin or via EmailaPrisoner.com.

Mohammed Niaz Khan
A9527AG,
HMP Long Lartin
Evesham
Worcestershire
WR11 8TZ

The Bradford Three


Justice For the Bradford Three  (Posted August 2012)

Mohammed Niaz Khan, Abid Ashiq Hussain and Sharaz Yaqub

fdsIt is not uncommon that when a serious crime cannot be solved and the real perpetrator of the crime cannot be found, the police, in desperation to avoid being labelled incompetent look for the scapegoats. In other words, they frame innocent people.

Like the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Cardiff Three and many others, I Mohammed Niaz Khan, and my two co-defendants Abid Ashiq Hussain and Sharaz Yaqub became victims of a grave Miscarriage of Justice in a similar manner five years ago. We were framed for the murder of a known drug dealer in Bradford. Shazad Hussain who was gunned down in September 2004.

When nearly two years of investigation could not lead to the apprehension of the real killer, police finally decided to frame us and close the file. Since there was no tangible evidence against us-neither forensic nor eyewitnesses- police found a few misguided souls who either held a grudge against us or who were going to benefit from our incarceration. These individuals told stories of our imaginary confessions.
                 Mohammed Niaz Khan  

One of them was an individual called Mazhar Iqbal. He was caught with 20 kilos of Class A drugs. Mr Iqbal was therefore in serious trouble as he was looking at a lengthy term of imprisonment, between 15 to 20 years. His ignoble manner of getting out of trouble was to fabricate a mendacious tale of our apparent confessions in relation to the murder of Mr Hussain. He was assisted in this task by his brother Mr Adnan Ahmed as expected. As a result, Mr Iqbal was rewarded handsomely and was given a paltry prison sentence of only five years.
                                             
Guilty conscience soon forced the two brothers to retract their mendacious statements. Besides, the aim to avoid a lengthy prison sentence for possession of 20 kilos of Class A drugs had been achieved.

Naturally, police must have felt tricked and betrayed so they resorted to usual bully-boy tactics and attempted to force the two brothers into a U-turn about their retractions. Whilst Mr Iqbal showed the resolve to withstand pressure from police, Mr Ahmed capitulated and claimed that my solicitor had told him what to say. This was yet another lie told, probably, under pressure from the police.

The police were quick to charge my solicitor with Perverting the Course of Justice. The obvious aims were to disrupt our defence preparations, to bring pressure on us and more importantly, to undermine our position during the trial, which they successfully did.

The jury at the solicitor's retrial dismissed Mr Ahmed's lies and cleared the solicitor of any wrongdoing. If the solicitor's retrial had been held before our trial and if our jury was aware of its outcome, not only would Mr Ahmed's evidence in our trial have been discredited but other fictitious confession tales could have also been seriously undermined too. Unfortunately, by the time Mr Ahmed's evidence was discredited the damage to us had already been done. We had already been wrongly convicted of Mr Hussain's murder and our appeal had also already been dismissed.

The other malevolent soul who also surfaced with similarly another mendacious story of confession was Mr Basharat Wali. Initially, his girlfriend, Ms Samantha Harpin, was also part of the conspiracy against us but she later dissociated herself from it. Most probably, her conscience caused this change of heart. With regards to Mr Wali, given that I did not know him nor had I ever met him, I can only suspect that he was manipulated either by the police or by some other malevolent people holding grudges against us.

The role of detectives in framing us was known to us from the beginning but we hardly expected anyone to come forward and admit the obvious. So we were understandably surprised when DC Bashir approached an independent solicitor and made a statement that he had fabricated evidence in our case. He made the most shocking revelation that it was his superiors who had pressured him into misconduct.

Instead of investigating the unnamed superiors, police arrested *Mr Bashir. He was charged and was supposed to stand trial, however the charges were dropped against him as it was not in the 'public interest' to prosecute. In other words, Mr Bashir was silenced because his evidence could have been damaging to the superiors and the police force in general. Besides, the truth might have severely undermined the safety of our wrongful convictions.

Despite being framed for a crime that we did not commit, we hold no grudges against anybody. We only seek justice, but this goal can only be achieved if those who lied against us now tell the truth.

Our sincere appeal for help to clear our names is not just aimed at Ms Samantha Harpin, Mr Basharat Wali, Mr Mazhar Iqbal, Mr Adnan Ahmed and DC Bashir but also to all those who we may not know but who may have information that could help prove our innocence. If you have any information, please contact:-

Bowden Jones Solicitors
Huw Bowden
22 Park Place,
Cardiff 
CF10 3DQ

Tel: 029 2048 4550, Emergency Tel 07771568525,
Email: Enquiries@bowdenjones.co.uk

hbowden@bowdenjones.co.uk

All information will be treated with strict confidentiality. Thank you.

Yours Faithfully,

M.N.Khan

Mohammed Niaz Khan
A9527AG,
HMP Long Lartin
Evesham
Worcestershire
WR11 8TZ

You can send an Email of Solidarity direct to Mohammed, at HMP Long Lartin via:
EmailaPrisoner.com

* [Murder-probe detective charged over 'dishonesty'
A detective, involved in a Bradford gangland murder investigation, has been accused of offences of dishonesty linked to the case. The 39-year-old detective constable and a second man, aged 36, have been charged with offences relating to the production of a false document. Police confirmed the arrests and charges were in connection with the Amberley Street shooting inquiry. The trial judge, Mrs Justice Rafferty, said Mohammed Niaz Khan, Abid Ashiq Hussain and Sharaz Yaqub, who were convicted of murder, thought they were above the law, and Mr Hussain had died in a cynical and carefully-planned operation.
Bradford Telegraph & Argust, 26th August 2009

Bradford detective remains suspended as misconduct charge considered
A Bradford detective cleared of conspiring to make a false declaration in a high-profile murder case, could still face misconduct proceedings by his force. Detective Constable Wasim Bashir, 39, had been due to stand trial at Sheffield Crown Court on Monday with another Bradford man, Mohammed Ahmed. But the case was dropped when the Crown Prosecution Service received new information from the police which led them to conclude it was no longer in the public interest to prosecute. The officer has been suspended for 20 months and remains so.
In a statement released yesterday, a West Yorkshire Police spokesman said: "We can confirm that the criminal case against DC Wasim Bashir and Mr Ahmed was withdrawn by the Crown Prosecution Service on the grounds of public interest following fresh information coming to light. "As there are still outstanding disciplinary matters to be considered against a serving officer it would be inappropriate to comment further.]
Bradford Telegraph and Argus, 7th July 2010