Saiorse for Richard Southern
[Update September 2019: Richard is in the process of perfecting ground for a new application to the CCRC. Would like to thank all those who have written to him over the years.]
Richard Southern is innocent
of the Murder for which he was convicted and sentenced to Life Imprisonment
Due to the failings of
his legal advisors and those of our whole legal system, he and through
him You, were denied a fair and just trial.
I know that will not sound
too unfamiliar to you, we have all heard and seen many cases of innocent
men and women having their names cleared up to 50 years after them having
been HUNG! Some less catastrophically, maybe, after they have been imprisoned
for up to 30 years!
Similar instances have
become a Fact Of Life, but not a necessary one and one we can all, realistically,
do something about.
Richard was aware of the
circumstances that led up to the murder that he was wrongly convicted
of, not who committed the crime. Only through his genuine and natural
fears for the safety of his family and himself did he withhold these circumstances
from the police.
It is Richards totally
understandable fears that allowed those responsible to use him (unwittingly
and unwillingly) as a scapegoat, a sacrificial lamb which they were able
to do with the aid of an under funded Police force and an overloaded judiciary.
Added to this are the only too human errors concerned in the corruption
present in such public bodies.
The murdered man was found
some time between 12 noon and 3:15pm on Saturday the 9th September 1995.
Some Time, because there are contradictory versions of evidence on this
point of the prosecution case, as there is concerning every matter of
the prosecution case. E.g. There were reports front neighbours of the
murdered man that his flatmate was seen at the premises (the scene of
the crime) from lunchtime up to 2.30 p.m. crying, from 45 minutes up to
three hours before that declared to the police by the flatmate and one
other prosecution witness as the time they discovered the body. - Why
did the police not make anything of these evident contradictions? '
This contradictory evidence
was kept from the trial jury by Richards own defence team, contrary to
his instructions to them concerning these matters. Not only was over 90%
of the evidence kept from the jury by his defence team but Merseyside
Police, the Crown Prosecution Service and numerous Judges have also assisted
in limiting or controlling the evidence heard by the trial jury.
The trial jury heard only
10% of the whole case. They also heard from less than 25% of the total
number of witnesses. Three of the witnesses whose evidence was used to
convict Richard Southern did not even have to attend court and were, therefore,
not allowed to be cross examined in front of the jury. Fundamental times
relied on by the prosecution "The Crown", given in the evidence of these
witnesses statements read out at trial just happened to coincide with
the time of death given by the judge during his summing up when N0 witness,
professional Nor otherwise gave a time of death at court nor in their
How can a judge decide
a time of death, when the professionals in such fields could not or would
not? The only answer to that question is that the judge's error (accidental
or otherwise?) only helped the prosecution case it did not help justice.
The times given in the
statements of these three witnesses not only did they just happen to coincide
with the judge giving a time of death, but those times also just happened
to coincide with another error the judge made in his summing up, that
of the judge misquoting the time by an HOUR, given at court by a witness
claiming they had seen somebody (that they couldn't say was male or female,
nor what colour/type of clothing that somebody wore at that time) in the
street outside their home almost immediately after they had heard one
"Bang" (the murdered man was said to have been shot twice). This somebody
being some 75 yards from the said scene of the crime.
Are these errors of the
judge all concentrated within a fundamental 54-minute time span just coincidence?
They all help the prosecution case. Can you believe they are accidental?
The main prosecution witness
admitted and was convicted of possessing, intent to supply and supplying
class "A" illegal drugs, namely Heroin and Crack Cocaine on at least 4
counts while waiting to give evidence against Richard. Upon being sentenced
for these offences his punishment was not a custodial sentence, (even
Richard Bacon, ex-Blue Peter presenter was sentenced to a period of imprisonment
for just 1 count of intent to supply supplying a lesser" addictive form
of cocaine than the main prosecution witness against Richard was) which
could have been in the region of 15 years, but a £55 fine and 180 hours
of community service.
The same prosecution witness
also admitted possessing illegal firearms and ammunition yet received
no punishment for those crimes despite them carrying prison sentences
of up to 10 years.
It is this prosecution
witness without whose evidence Richard would not have been brought to
trial who twice stood up in court and admitted having his hit of heroin
before taking the stand.
One of the solicitors who
worked on Richards case was subsequently convicted of supplying
undercover police with 50,000 Ecstacy tablets !!!
During the investigation
of the murder numerous potential prosecution witnesses admitted being
concerned in the supply of illegal drugs for the police to press no charges
as it not serving the public interest, yet after Richard was charged with
murder the police then charged him with an offence of fraud relating to
obtaining property from a catalogue, members of Merseyside police informed
Richard's family that should the murder charge against Richard be dropped
or collapse, that they were going ahead with the fraud charge (which added
up to £790 - £900's worth of goods). What is that if not a prime example
of the polices differential treatment of prosecution witnesses compared
with that of an accused.
The European convention
under article 6 "The Right To A Fair Trial" states that any citizen of
the European community charged with a criminal offence has the following
minimum right (among others) -"To examine or have examined, witnesses
against them and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses
on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him"
Why then was Richard Southern
denied the right and provisions of not only British Domestic Law but also
his rights as stipulated under the articles of the European convention?
Wrexham Industrial Estate