THE JUNE GRAVE
CAMPAIGN FOR JUSTICE
Arson of a hotel and the death of a witness.
In
the period 1989/90 June Grave was engaged in the overseeing of two hotels owned by
The Richard Grave Leisure Group based in Blackpool. One of these hotels - the Savoy
Hotel, St Annes on Sea - had two public bars one of which was situated in the basement
of the hotel and locally known as the `Savoy Cellar Bar' well frequented by locals.
It was from this bar a drama was to unfold, simply by virtue of the public spirited
action of June Grave.
June Grave became reasonably aware that illicit substances were
being used and exchanged in the cellar bar of the Savoy hotel. She conveyed her suspicions
to the St Annes Police and within days of making her report was visited by a WPC
who took charge of the inquiry, to the point of raising the matter with her senior
police officers. Subsequently, a co-ordinated police raid was arranged on the Savoy
premises in conjunction with June Grave and a police inspector. The outcome produced
arrests and the finding of a drug substance.
Following the co-ordinated police Task
Force raid on the Savoy premises, Richard Grave - one of the principal owners of
The Richard Grave Leisure Group - began to receive obnoxious threats from certain
personnel attached to the St Annes Division of the Lancashire Constabulary. Such
was the seriousness of these threats that Richard Grave sought the advice of his
acting solicitors who advised that a meeting should be arranged with a Chief Inspector
of the Lancashire Constabulary at the Police Station in St Annes. Present at the
meeting at St Annes Police Station was Richard Grave, Mr Rowland Darbyshire (solicitors
acting for The Richard Grave Leisure Group) and a lady Chief Inspector of Police.
The meeting was cordial. The Chief Inspector made assurances that she would thoroughly
investigate the threats being made against Mr Grave and The Richard Grave Leisure
Group property. The Chief Inspector told Mr Grave and his Solicitor that the threats
would cease forthwith. This did not happen and no official result was given as to
the outcome of the investigation of the complaint by the Chief Inspector.
There was
a young man named David Etterick, who had done part time kitchen work for the Richard
Grave Leisure Group, both at the Savoy hotel and the Waldorf hotel in Blackpool.
David was a very civil person, who had been himself involved in drug taking, although
at that period in time he was intent upon `kicking the habit'. It was at this juncture
that David Etterick, who knew most of the local Drug Squad, warned Richard Grave
that June Grave's public spiritedness had not only touched a nerve with local dealers
but had also upset certain police officers engaged in the illicit recycling of confiscated
drugs for their own ends. It transpires two Lancashire Constabulary police officers
were imprisoned in 1995 for such offences. The Richard Grave Leisure Group ceased
trading in 1990, at which time June Grave, through the assistance of Barclays Bank,
purchased one of the Richard Grave Leisure Group's hotels based in North Lancashire:
The Holmere Hall Hotel. Both Richard Grave and June Grave were divorced from their
respective first partners and married each other in November 1990. June and Richard
Grave moved to the Holmere Hall Hotel after their marriage from where they began
to receive telephone threats, despite the Chief Inspector's assurances. These were
reported to the police in vain.
In 1991 and 1992 David Etterick was warning Richard
Grave that a certain police element were intent upon `destroying' June and Richard
Grave.
In July 1992 June Grave received a `surprise' visit from DSS Fraud Investigators
who advised her they were acting on an anonymous `tip-off' that she was falsifying
PAYE records. There followed an investigation by the DSS Fraud Officers culminating
in June Grave being absolved from any such allegation. The DSS Fraud Investigating
Officers interpreted the information received by them as being `malicious from the
outset'.
Some few weeks later June Grave was again surprised by an Environmental Health
investigation - this came to nought.
Again, following a period of a few weeks, June
Grave was subjected to a three day inspection of a!l accounting records by a Custom
and Excise VAT Investigator. The whole of the Holmere Hall records were microscopically
examined. The VAT Inspector conceded that there were no irregularities - but for
an over payment of some £300 made by June Grave, which was reimbursed to her by cheque.
At
around midnight on the 11 October 1992, following close of business, June and Richard
Grave were talking, over drinks, with two local residents. The hotel dog became irritable
and began to bark. This raised concern of all present. The dog was allowed to go
outside, followed by Richard Grave. The dog rapidly made her way to the beer garden
area of the hotel complex. At this point Richard Grave was aware that three men were
making their escape from the hotel grounds. One turned and threw a stone at Richard
Grave striking him on the head. Chase was given by one of the hotel customers, who
himself saw three men making off in a car. He gave chase but lost them. These witnesses
made written statements.
June Grave systematically enjoyed a weekly day off - always
being Monday (barring Bank Holidays) when the hotel was closed for business. On Monday
the 12 October 1992 the premises were entered upon and arsoned - effectively closing
down her business.
David Etterick persistently maintained that a named serving police
officer in the Lancashire Constabulary, based locally to the hotel was involved in
the arson attack on June Grave's property and on the 18 October 1992, during a telephone
conversation, gave the name of this officer. On the 19 October 1992 June Grave passed
on to her solicitor the name of the serving police officer. In fact, David Etterick
volunteered to be June Grave's chief witness to this effect. Mr David Croall, acting
solicitor for June Grave, wrote to the PCA on the 24 January 1994 making a formal
complaint in anticipation of an investigation by the PCA - this was ignored by the
PCA.
It transpires the same named officer was arrested for offences committed - whilst
on Station Duty - only a few days after the arson attack. He was convicted and left
the force.
June Grave made an insurance claim in respect of fire damage done to her
hotel which was disputed by her Insurers. Meanwhile, the police were attempting to
put blame on June Grave as having made a fraudulent insurance claim. June Grave was
granted legal aid to bring about a Civil action against her Insurers and the Chief
Constable of the Lancashire Constabulary. In 1994 June and Richard Grave were arrested
on suspicion of a fraudulent insurance claim - they were released and were never
charged.
David Etterick was also arrested on `trumped up' allegations in 1994 following
threats against him by the police in order to `frighten him off' acting as a chief
witness for June Grave, David Etterick was found - shortly after his arrest - hanged
in his police cell. The verdict was `suicide' but Richard Grave protested to Mrs
Barbara Mills (DPP) that David's death necessitated a Public Inquiry - the CPS rejected
this notion.
At the Civil Trial Hearing against June Grave's Insurers, the Judge -
HHJ Goddard - heard a Detective Constable admit - under oath - in his evidence under
cross-examination that a number of CCTV tapes belonging to June Grave, entrusted
to the police, had been deliberately taped over thus destroying the factual evidence
contained on these tapes which had recorded the incident in the hotel grounds on
the 11 October 1992 depicting the three intruders. Other tapes had been lost, whilst
in police custody. The Detective Constable assured the Court that he had personally
instigated an internal inquiry into this incident, yet we have seen no record or
account of any such internal inquiry.
There is evidence, too, that other material
evidence held by the Lancashire Constabulary which had been removed by the police
from the hotel, had been interfered with in order to destroy the credibility of June
Grave. All of this evidence was never presented to the Court during the Civil Trial
Hearing. Neither were witnesses called to give evidence in favour of June Grave.
Many
documents went `missing' or were deliberately kept out of the Core bundles presented
to the Court. In particular, medical evidence paid for out of Public funds relating
to June Grave's health, were never presented to the Court, neither was Expert Medical
Witness evidence called, despite assurances from June Grave's acting solicitors that
such evidence would be available during the Trial.
Forensic Accountant's evidence
was never called, despite extensive public money being expended on this exercise.
Supporting Reports of June Grave were not included in Core bundles.
It transpires
the Senior Detective in charge of the investigation into June Grave’s case was, concurrently
during the Civil Trial, under investigation himself for falsifying evidence in another
case - he was later found guilty under the PCA procedures and demoted.
A matter of
weeks prior to the Civil Trial against June Grave's Insurers her acting solicitor
walked out of the practice at a moments notice of which he was a partner, leaving
her case and papers in chaos.
June Grave's Civil action against Barclays Bank was
settled separately by personal negotiations between June Grave and Barclays Bank
on the agreed understanding June Grave would not pursue the bank for `Breach of Contract/Negligence'.
June
Grave's public spiritedness did not end in 1990 - in fact she assisted the police
in 1999 in the course of inquiries into an attempt by felons to rob a Security van.
Her evidence, among others, helped to secure arrests and convictions of these criminals.
Richard
Grave, too, in 1959, assisted a police officer (Mr Tom Lace who later went on to
be Deputy Chief Constable of Blackpool) in the arrest of an armed felon who discharged
a pistol at Richard Grave. He was commended.
Also in 1975, Richard Grave enforced
a citizens' arrest on a known criminal attempting to rape a twelve-year-old girl.
He was commended.
The retained Leading Counsel (QC) acting for June Grave assured
June Grave and the Legal Aid Board that she would win her Liability action against
her Insurers, as evidenced by transcript of a pre-trial conference held in Liverpool
in April 1999. In consequence of these assurances given by Leading Counsel her legal
aid certificate was extended to include all legal expenses, including Trial expenses.
The
mysterious death of David Etterick was not made known to the Court.
None of the three
incidents involving anonymous `tip offs which occurred within a space of a few months
prior to the arson attack on the Holmere Hall hotel were brought to the attention
of the Court. Neither was the incident at around midnight 11/12 October 1992 involving
the three intruders (substantiated by witness statements) and the CCTV tape recording
of the incident which was entrusted to the Lancashire Constabulary in 1992. The extensive
Expert Witness forensic evidence in support of June Grave's case was never heard
during the Trial. The written witnesses statements were omitted.
The Detective Constable
who gave evidence during the Trial had in 1996 made statements and reports - these
were not included in the Core bundles - which were in contradiction of the evidence
he gave while under cross-examination.
Vital damning evidence and photographs produced
by the Scene of Crime Forensic Officer (civilian) who had left Lancashire by the
time of the Trial were not brought to the attention of the Court - this person was
not called to give evidence.
No report/statement/handbook notes were produce from
a uniformed officer who was first at the scene on the 12 October 1992. This officer
was not called as a witness. No less than four detectives were at the scene on the
12 October 1992. No reports/statements/handbook notes were produced. These officers
were not called as witnesses.
The Detective Constable who was called was not at the
scene on the 12 October 1992. This officer took over investigations on the 13 October
1992.
Evidence was available to prove the planting of fabricated evidence - as determined
by a Consultant Forensic Scientist's evidence. This eminent forensic scientist concluded
that owing to the amount of blood deposits around the hotel `someone must have been
very seriously injured'. The scientist advised June Grave that a thorough examination
of the crime scene by a team of forensic scientists would be necessary if the blood
proved to be human. Letter to June Grave from her acting solicitors, 20 April 1999,
states "suggests that the blood is human and was there at the time of the fire".
There
was no further forensic examination of the crime scene
Not until 1998 - after tile
presence of blood was established by June Grave's forensic scientist - did the Insurers
instruct their forensic scientist to examine the crime scene.
Evidence given by a
Leading Fire Officer while under cross-examination , also indicated that the planting
of fabricated evidence was evident
The Loss Adjuster acting for the Insurers was not
called to give evidence. Photographs taken of the crime scene confirm a large quantity
of blood deposited all around the rooms of the hotel. Other photographs illustrate
the presence of other vital evidence This evidence proved beyond doubt that the evidence
given under oath by the Detective Constable highlighted an attempt leading to the
perverting of the course of Justice.
At the expense of legal aid funding a Forensic
Accountant had been commissioned by acting solicitors for June Grave to support the
credibility of June Grave and her business, also to countermand the malicious, libelous
report put together by Forensic Accountants acting for the Insurers. Unfortunately
June Grave's Forensic Accountant was denied, by June Grave's acting solicitors, the
essential documentation to formulate an accurate report despite requests to June
Grave's acting solicitors. Not until around the 14 July 1999 did June Grave's acting
solicitors conform with the Accountants requests - the trial to commence on 26 July
1999. By the 19 July 1999 the Forensic Accountant had compiled a comprehensive and
concise report in full support of June Grave which would have proved crucial as evidence
during the Trial. This vital document was never included in the Core bundles. Although
June Grave's Forensic Accountant was present during the trial he was never called
to give evidence. This allowed their insurers a free hand to present the grossly
inaccurate and vindictive report of their Forensic Accountant without being challenged.
June
Grave's case against her Insurers was dismissed
June Grave's efforts to have her case
reviewed by Appeal has also been denied her; again despite the corroborative evidence
presented with her application for Leave to Appeal. It is also a fact the Royal Counts
of Justice declined out of hand to study the original Court transcript put together
by Cater Walsh.
Gratitude has to be expressed in this document to the Portia Trust,
in particular to their pro bono Barrister, Mr William West, for their patience and
diligence extended to June Grave since I993 in assisting June Grave to acquire legal
aid for the purpose of pursuing her Civil actions.
On the 6 May 2000 Fraud Investigating
Officers of the DSS reported they had yet again, received anonymous information casting
aspersions on the character of Richard Grave. These anonymous allegations have been
regarded as `malicious'.
The fight goes on for June Grave and David Etterick to expose
the iniquitous manipulation of the judicial system to protect certain serving officers
serving in the Lancashire Constabulary.
June Grave, 27 Fulwood Drive, Torrisholme,
Morecambe, LA4 6QX
Telephone and Fax: 01524 400393
Posted 17 May 2000
www.slimeylimeyjustice.org