==============================

The Banallity of Evil

Dear Hostages,

of late, a quotation *"the banality of evil" keeps pushing itself to the forefront of my mind. Tony Blair, perfectly illustrates this, a prancing, posing, vainglorious man. So in love with the image he feels he is projecting, that he turns up at every scene of conflict and happily pours petrol on the flickering flames in order that the light it throws up can show him in all his ‘splendour’.

‘Evil’, is an old fashioned word, but its meaning is somehow clear to all, and is enjoying a rebirth, or perhaps, like influenza, it withdraws from each battle in order to mutate into a more effective force? At present it has gripped the imaginations of the worlds politicians and in various guises ‘peace’ ‘order’ ‘progress’ 'justice’ ‘the greater good, etc. They are attempting to change humanity into some slightly higher form of breed of ants. Where masses move as one and thought is seen as an unwanted variation from the desired "norm’.

‘Murder of the week’ in foreign counties is glorified as "justice", money is poured into the pockets of arms manufactures - as it always has done, yet there is never enough for education or health. We supply arms to half the world on terms of credit that would never be allowed for anything needed to build up the infrastructure of the recipient countries. And when the countries default on repayment (having served to enrich the people that matter) the poor of this country are required to pick up the bill under guarantied payment clauses by higher taxes.

Yes "Evil is doing well, it is destroying one of humanities greatest achievements, communication skills.

Politicians, ‘evils handmaidens’, have learnt to slip new words into and between those that everyone understood, so as to alter the clear sense of meaning and replace it with something that means the opposite, so most people no longer understand where they are being led.

These are dark thoughts, but of late the weight of persecution, together with the corroding, insidious boredom that is the essential ingredient of prison life seems to have subdued my lighter side. Writing when I can whip up the will to do so, helps to control the urge to express my sudden surges of anger in some physical way, and also helps alleviate the more darker and persistent bouts of depression. On top of which I have physical problems, my left eye now being useless for anything other than the manufacture of headaches. Bouts of mouth ulcers that spring up in an instant and persist in one form or another for weeks, and a tongue so sore, cracked, and tender at times it feels as though it doesn’t belong in my mouth.

When you consider that between 50 and 150 thousand sperm race to reach the "winning post" of being born, one has to wonder if, given the opportunity, all the winners could return to the starting gate so to speak, how many would even bother to put on their running shoes?

Paul Lyons, who is opposite me, has made a couple of short trips to the block in recent weeks and informs me they are no longer quite as oppressive down there as they used to be. But then the ‘normal’ everyday oppressions of life on the wings are more than enough to contend with in my view. This modern trend of treating prisoner as commodities to be bought, sold, and exploited by everyone is, in a sense, no different that the exploitation of concentration camp prisoners by the Nazis, who "harvested" hair, teeth, glasses, etc from their crop.

The darkness of my view of humanity in the 21st century is the result of being ruled by inbred bastards for a thousand years. Perhaps we would all benefit from a cull with an injection of new blood and a re-introduction of the gene that allows for a conscience.

Best wishes for the new year, to all those ’Hostages’ still inside and to the few who made it to the gate, Stay Free,

Ronnie Easterbrook

Hostage of the State

HMP Whitemoor

Longhill Road

Cambs, PE15 0PR

*Hannah Arendt (1906-75), her notion of "the banality of evil" has ensured her a place in the history of Western thought. The idea, emblazoned in the subtitle of her controversial 1963 book, ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’, impressed many people as a fundamental insight into a new and distinctly modern kind of evil.

============================

Let a Jury Decide - Coppers did the Crime - but they ain't going to do no Time

Two police officers who shot an unarmed man dead in a London street will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution Service ruled on Thursday 13th December.

Harry Stanley, 46, died after being shot in the head and hand by two firearms officers who said they mistook a wooden table leg in a plastic bag for a sawn-off shotgun in September 1999 in Hackney, east London.

The Crown Prosecution Service said "that the scientific and expert evidence contradicted the account given by the two officers." That "It is also clear that both officers intended, at least, to cause grievous bodily harm." and "concluded that officers had been negligent and had failed in the duty of care they owed Mr Stanley." "But there was insufficient evidence to bring charges."

How many people are rotting in UK prisons, convicted of murder on far less evidence?

Whether the officers were acting under an honest mistaken belief in self-defence, is an issue that should to be left to a Jury.

The Crown Prosecution Service’s role is to bring the evidence before the court and let the jury decide the facts. It's not up to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide that a suspects defence is sufficient to waiver prosecution.

Armed police officers are supposed to be highly trained marksmen, who won't shoot in panic. They didn't shoot to disable - they shot to kill and there is no self-defence in that. The law on self-defence is that you may use sufficient force to protect yourself.

Harry Stanley would have to have been a very clever marksmen to have shot (what the police say they thought was a double barrelled shot gun) at them and caused injury, only using one hand.

The police should have known that even if he did have a gun, as he was only raising one arm he was very very unlikely to have shot on target.

Harry was raising his hands to surrender after the officers shouted a warning when the first shot was fired hitting him in the left hand which was at around waist height. A second shot, then passed through his head They say the plastic bag containing the table leg was in his right.

Mr Stanley's widow Irene said: "Their decision effectively gives the police a licence to kill."

==============================================================

Crown Prosecution Service, Press Release, 13 December 2001

The Death Of Henry Stanley

Following a further thorough review of the evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the police officers involved.

Harry Stanley was shot dead in tragic circumstances in the early hours of 22 September 1999, Surrey police investigated his death Under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority, and a detailed and complex report was transmitted to the crown Prosecution Service in June, 2000. The report addressed, in Particular, the actions of the two police Officers who caused who caused Mr Stanley's death

On 4 December 2000, the CPS informed the Surrey Police and the Stanley family that having reviewed the evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors they had decided that there was insufficient evidence to afford a realistic prospect of conviction with regard to any criminal offence alleged to have been committed by either officer- For this reason, they concluded that criminal proceedings should not be instituted against the officers involved.

Following correspondence, solicitors commenced judicial review proceedings on behalf of Irene Stanley, Mr. Stanley's widow. They argued that the CPS decision not to prosecute the officers for gross negligence manslaughter was legally flawed because it relied on an erroneous conclusion. This was that it could not be proved that Mr. Stanley's death was caused by tactical errors committed by the two police officers,

Having considered the application for judicial review, the CPS agreed to conduct a further review of all the evidence and material submitted to it to decide afresh whether there was a realistic prospect of securing a conviction in respect of any offence.

Accordingly, the CPS has re-considered whether, under the Code, there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against either police officer in relation to any of the following offences: murder, attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm with intent (contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861), manslaughter by gross negligence or misconduct in a public office.

In doing so the CPS have looked afresh at the entirety of the material and sought, once again, an opinion from Queen's Counsel, from whom the CPS received lengthy and comprehensive advice. For the avoidance of doubt, that was -not the same Queen's Counsel who had advised in relation to the earlier decision. During the course of the reconsideration, clarification was sought on a number of matters from those expert witnesses who had already provided statements to the PCA investigation. Indeed, the police firearms policy expert provided three further detailed witness statements to the CPS.

Having considered the evidential test identified at paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 of the Code, the CPS has now concluded that there is insufficient evidence to justify the institution of criminal proceedings against either police officer in relation to any of the above offences

The case against each officer has been considered separately. However, the CPS has also considered whether, in accordance with the well known principles of 'joint' enterprise", either officer may be said to be liable for the acts of the other. We have taken into account the application of the Human Rights Act, in particular Act 2 of the Convention.

In relation to the specific acts of the officers, it is clear that Officer 1 fired a shot, which passed through the head of Henry Stanley, resulting in his death. Officer 2 fired a shot, Which passed through the left ring finger causing injury to the fingers on either side. It is also clear that both officers intended, at least, to cause grievous bodily harm.

The CPS are obliged, however, to consider any possible defence's that might arise and, after careful consideration, have concluded that not only is the defence of self-defence undoubtedly open in respect of murder (and attempted murder and grievous bodily harm), but that it is also available in the case of gross negligence manslaughter. In these circumstances we have considered whether the prosecution would be able to disprove the inevitable defence that the police officers had an honest belief that they or others were in danger of harm and thus entitled to use force commensurate with the danger threatened. In essence, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to disprove the inevitable defence contention that the officers honestly believed that they were facing a sawn-off shotgun and that this threat was of a sufficient degree to merit the use of their guns to defend themselves in reasonable self-defence.

In interview, both officers maintained that Mr. Stanley turned towards them, raising an object in his hands, which they believed was a sawn-off shotgun, until it pointed directly at them, This lead them to fear for Officer 2's life. Both officers stated that they each fired a single shot because they considered that one of them faced an immediate threat to his life. There is, in the material before us, no substantial evidence upon which a jury could conclude that the officers' beliefs were anything other than genuine. The only independent witness to view the entire scene supports the fact that Mr. Stanley turned to face the police officers raising, as he did so, one of his arms in the direction of the police. She says that she saw the man raise one of his arms towards the officers in a deliberate and unhurried manner.

The scientific evidence does not undermine the account given by the officers regarding the events immediately before the shooting to the extent that the CPS considers that there is sufficient evidence of unlawfulness on their part. Although the account given by Officer I may superficially be inconsistent with the fact that Mr.Stanley's head was facing 120 degrees away from where he was standing, this does not exclude the possibility that the body and the right arm holding the carrier bag were nevertheless facing the officers, particularly if Mr Stanley was shot in the hand first, causing an unpredictable head movement Similarly, although the fact that there was no injury to Mr. Stanley's body indicates that he was not holding the bag out directly in front of him, this does not necessarily mean that he was not holding the, bag with both hands in the general direction of the police officers.

At best, the scientific evidence may provide some support for the conclusion that the police officers may have been inaccurate or even lied about their respective positions in the street. However, this would not be sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that they were acting unlawfully. The prosecution evidence still permits the conclusion that Mr. Stanley may have been turning towards them with the table leg in the bag. Accordingly, it would be very difficult to disprove a genuine belief that the officers were facing a sawn-off shotgun. It follows that proceedings for murder, attempted murder or grievous bodily harm should not, be instituted.

Even if the CPS are mistaken as to whether the defence of self-defence is open in principle to gross negligence manslaughter, the CPS have concluded that there is, in any event, insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction in relation to its primary elements as set out in the case. of R v Adornako (1995] 1 AC 171, This case makes it clear that the prosecution is obliged to prove that there was a breach of a duty of care which caused the death of Mr. Stanley and, if so, that such a breach should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore criminal. In this case, it is clear that such issues arise out of the planning and tactics employed by the two police officers.

The CPS have concluded that there is sufficient evidence on which a jury could realistically be satisfied that there were breaches of the duty of care owed by both officers to Mr. Stanley, and that there was a sufficient causal link between the breaches and the death. In law, it is sufficient that the defendant's acts are a significant cause of death, rather than something that is merely "de minimis", and the CPS are satisfied that there is evidence that this is the case here.

The CPS have also considered whether the fact that there is evidence that the officers shot, or may have shot, Mr. Stanley in self-defence is sufficient to break the chain of causation. The CPS have concluded that it is not. Although Mr Stanley had a high alcohol blood reading, he was entitled to turn around upon hearing the shouted command from the police: "Armed police, drop the gun". Indeed, as he was not carrying a gun at all, he was entitled to place the table leg in whatever position he chose. If the police then shot him in self-defence having left themselves with no option, through their own tactical errors, but to do so, it seems to us that they cannot rely upon the fact that Mr. Stanley did as he did as a justification for breaking the chain of causation.

However, in relation to whether there is evidence upon which the jury could conclude that there was gross negligence deserving of the description "criminal", the CPS have concluded (as has Queen's Counsel) on the material provided, that there is insufficient evidence upon which a jury could conclude that the actions of both police officers fell sufficiently short of what a reasonable man would have done, placed it the position of the officers. I, doing so, the CPS recognise that evidence of recklessness may suffice in establishing such a conclusion, but also that the accused is entitled to adduce evidence that might excuse his conduct.

The CPS have considered whether the actions of either police officer amounted to misconduct in a public office. However, in this case, where there is no evidence of bad faith, the CPS have concluded that there is insufficient evidence fox- an offence of misconduct. . . . . . . . . .-ends-

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ian Thomas, has a last got a date for his appeal,Monday 11th February 2002, y'all know where.Campbell Malone & Mike Mansfield to argue his case

=====================================

Never Stop Fighting - Never Give Up - Even when your Out Glen Soames (ex HMP Highpoint), was jailed in 1997 for 4 years for GBH, he was released in May 2000. Glen always claimed he acted in self defence and campaigned whilst inside and after his release to get the conviction overturned. On Thursday 20th December 2001, in the High Court, Glen's conviction was quashed.MOJUK, Heartily congratulates Glen for his tenacity and courage.====================================

Ronnie Easterbrook, though his body has been devastated by over two years of refusing prison food, (Ronnie survives on oxos and ribena, which he pays for out of his pocket) his mind is still clear and sharp as a razor, read his latest letter, pages 2 & 3. Ronnie began refusing prison food, on Thursday 11 November 1999 in protest at the refusal of the CCRC to refer his case back to the Court of Appeal.

==================================================================

Harry Stanley, was blatantly murdered by the police, but they won’t be joining y’all. ‘Inside Out’, pages 4,5,6 and 7, carries the full Crown Prosecution Service, press release. There is enough evidence in the press release to convict (or easier still, ‘fit up’) these pair of murdering bastards, several times over, but it ain’t going to happen. ==================================================================

Gary Mills and Tony Poole: In a seemingly contradictory judgement the judges threw out Gary and Tony’s judicial review maintaining that the CCRC decision not to refer them back to the court of appeal was sound and yet went on to recommend that the case be looked at again {effectively what we would have got had we won the Judicial Review}.Their decision was given with virtually no notice just before Xmas, and unfortunately a copy of their decision has not yet been obtained by the campaign. As a result we can not at present comment on the content of the judgement. However we are encouraged by the fact that if seems that at long last we have indication that a judgement is accepting that there is so much at fault with this conviction that when added together they make the conviction unsafe {to say the least}.Experience has taught us not to underestimate the scale of the task in front of us but we feel that we have a good legal team and we will be fighting to exploit this crack in the wall. Meantime the campaign will continue to maintain a public profile with two demonstrations in January the first on Saturday January 5th being a picket of Gloucester police station at 12:00 to remember the death in custody of Hensley Wiltshire. There will be a further demonstration around January 26th to mark their conviction at Bristol Crown Court in 1990 details yet to be finalised.