My name is Roy John Burke and I'm currently serving a 15-year prison sentence for a robbery I didn't commit. I must point out that I did admit to my solicitor that I add burgled this mans house on the Friday night (19.7.96.). But that was two days prior to the robbery-taking place at the same address on Sunday tea time (21.7.96). I did not commit the crime I'm in prison for. The total value that the robbers got away with was £100. This consisted of some cash and some jewellry. I didn't have any thing to do with that robbery. I will now outline the facts of my case.

I will start by saying that there were two people involved in this robbery, one of them is male and the other female, she is described as follows 5-4 in height, long blond hair, that is all that is known about her. The male's description is as follows between 6 ft and 6ft 2 inches tall with long black or dark hair, weight at between 16 stone and 18 stone having a very big build. I would like to point out at this stage that my description at the time of the robbery was as follows. I am 5feet 7 inches tall with very short blond to mousy coloured hair, my weight was 8 stone 3 pounds two weeks before the robbery was committed, medical evidence was produced in court that confirmed this by the way of a letter that came from the dietician who was treating me whilst I was in Wigan Hospital. You will also see by the description given of my self and that of the male robber that I couldn't possibly have been that person.

Also I would like to point out that the police delayed my request for as long as they could for me to be placed on an identification parade to see if I would be picked out as being the male robber. Instead I had to wait till the first day of my trial before I could get an I-D parade and that took place in open court before the jury. Mr Cunningham the robbed man was asked if the male robber was seated in the courtroom and if so could he please pick him out. Mr Cunningham looked around the courtroom but he didn't pick anyone out, he was then asked if I was that male robber (I was pointed at by my barrister).

Mr Cunningham asked if he could come close to me because he was to far away from me to make a positive identification. He then came right up to my face and looked at me for about 1 minute he then turned to the judge and said no your honour that's not him I don't know him. At this point I thought the case against me would have to be thrown out because I couldn't be the female robber and there were only two robbers mentioned in the mans statements that he's made.

Also when I went to the crown court for my P.T.H. (pre trial hearing) on the (17.3.97.) before a QC judge called Lever. The prosecutor was reading the charge out when the judge stopped him to ask if I'd been placed on an I.D parade whilst I've been on this charge the answer was no your honour. The judge then said no wonder looking at the description of the robber and looking at me seated in court because I didn't look anything like the male robber. The judge then asked for my trial date to be fixed as soon as possible.

He was then told it would be July he said it has to be earlier than that so they said June he still refused this date and said its got to be earlier than that.

They then said May the 8th but there's a problem with that date because it was a Thursday and they don't like starting a 5 day trail so near to the weekend. The judge then said he thought it was a bit dangerous to send a jury out over the weekend for them to return on Monday too consider their verdict. He then said but in a case like this it doesn't usually reach the jury so the 8th of May it shall be.

Now for the alibi witnesses that I gave to my solicitor, there were only two that were listed to appear in court for me, they were the landlady of my local pub were I spent the Sunday evening, Sharon and her daughter Mandy.

Mandy should have been one of my main witnesses, but I did not wish to compromise her by calling her to give evidence as it would probably have caused the arrest of someone else on an unrelated matter and because of this I went into court without my main alibi witness.

Sharon Mandy's mother only came to court after being threatened with a summons to appear. It was the landlady who came and told me about the robbery in the first place, but in court she said that this couldn't be true because the police didn't come to see her till two weeks after the robbery was committed. I had stated in my evidence that she had told me that the police had visited her on Monday morning (22.7.96).

The police records will now show that I was telling the truth from the start because the copper's notebook states that she was visited on the Monday morning (22.7.96) the day after the robbery had taken place. It's my belief the jury came to the conclusion that I was lying because the landlady's evidence contradicted mine completely. But It also can now be proved that Sharon lied to the court by saying that the police only visited her two weeks after the robbery was committed.

I also gave my solicitor another four alibi witness names who had been with me at the time of the robbery. When I was on remand my solicitor came up to see me and said that he'd been too see these witnesses. He then said he'd interviewed them all, he then told me they wouldn't have be any use to me as alibi witnesses as the robbery Had begun at 6.20 pm and I'd not met up with these people until 6.40 pm. However evidence later showed that the robbery was still taking place (four miles away) at 7.00 pm and that my solicitor had not even bothered to trace these four witnesses.

I believe he lied to me then and he's still lying to me now because he still denies to this day that I ever told him about those four witnesses whilst I was in the police station. I know that he wrote their names down on a writing pad that he had with him that day. He now tries to claim that he never had a writing pad with him whilst he was at the police station. If that had been the case how did he take notes from me before we had the police interview, all solicitors have notebooks with them it's common practise.

Also what is more disturbing about this case is that on the first day of my trial I was visited down in the cells that night by two friends of mine, I was told by Julie that the woman and bloke that were sat in front of them in court were C.I.D officers. And that she had overheard the woman C.I.D officer say that if this case stays at two robbers only there's no court in this land that would convict me as being the male robber. She had said that I didn't look anything like the description that was given.

This same officer then left the courtroom for a few minutes. When she returned the man that was robbed followed her into court to give his evidence and once he'd said that I wasn't the male robber he then told the court that there were three or four people involved. This was the first time there had been any mention of there being more than two robbers, I've been thinking since this happened. The policewoman had some influence on the man saying that there could have been more than two robbers involved this same woman is now under investigation her self, but for what I don't know at this stage.

I'm currently in my sixth year of this 15 year sentence and I've had to do both of my appeals my self from my cell because I was never represented in court by any legal team. The reason for that was, I wouldn't let them do an appeal against my sentence. It was conviction only as far as I was concerned. Both my appeals were done in the space of 4 months from the date of conviction, my second appeal was in the full court before the lord chief justice (Lord Wolf).

Because I wasn't represented in court it took me three and a half years and plenty of letters to the appeal courts before I was able to receive the judgement of my final appeal. When I read it, Lord Wolf had stated that there were 5 questions that needed answers to them. He then went on to answer them all him self by saying it didn't matter, first question was it didn't matter that the man that was robbed had said there was only ever two robbers.

Also it didn't matter that he then changed his version of there only being two robbers, he now claims that he told the police that there could have been three or four people involved. It also doesn't matter that the police officer who took Mr Cunningham's statement said in open court that this couldn't have happened because it is very important to know how many robbers you are looking for. Mr Cunningham had only ever given the descriptions of the two robbers that have been described in all his statements. Also Lord Wolf said it doesn't matter that the description given of the male robber couldn't possibly have fitted Mr Burke and that there was an identification done in open court and no one was picked out. Also it doesn't matter that Mr Burke has written to the appeal court asking for an adjournment because there are four alibi witnesses that need to be interviewed. On this particular question Lord Wolf said we only have Mr Burke's word for this and he's not in court today.

There also five other witnesses that have never been seen by my old solicitors or any of the many other Solicitors I've had working on my case. The main reason for this is the CPS. won't hand over any unused material. They did once offer to let a solicitor travel down from London to Wigan to view the paper work but he was told that he wouldn't be able to photo copy anything or take notes and he couldn't take anything away with him. The solicitor refused their offer. He wrote to me saying there was nothing he could do against the might of the CPS. That's the kind of thing I've been hearing from most of the solicitors I've had working for me.

There are two other things that are not right about my case. The first one concerns the scenes of crime officer that gave evidence in court. This officer told the court that he had 8 finger print lifts from items that were used in the course of this robbery. He was asked if any of those prints belonged to me, his answer was no they didn't, they had belonged to some one that wasn't on record or to persons unknown. This officer then went on to say that he had also lifted some hairs and fibres from Mr Cunningham's clothing for DNA testing. He was then asked could you please tell the court what the results were, he replied by saying that he had no results to give the court because these items were never tested for DNA as to clarify who they belonged too.

So what they are really saying is that we don't care who the DNA belongs to because we've got someone locked up for it so nothing else matters. Well I find this very hard to believe myself, because you would think the cops would have been buzzing at the thought of getting some DNA from any crime that would point the finger at someone connected with it. Any way it was 12 months after the robbery was committed when he said this, I'm now at the end of my sixth year and as far as I'm aware these items have still not been tested.

I would like to say that because I'm in denial of this offence I'm classed as being a rebel without a cause. Well there is a cause, my freedom and as far as I'm concerned I will carry on being a rebel till the end. I've done my fair share in the past. I've been on many blanket protests, hunger strikes, lie downs, so there is nothing I won't do to keep the pressure on. Also when I've done the 10 years I am going to end up losing all the 5 years remission as well. The reason for that is I won't comply with the 15 months licence that they will release me on after I've served 10 years.

Also I've been on standard regime for six years now and I've been told that I will be kept on it till the end of my sentence because I won't take part in any of the courses and also because I won't talk to screws.

They say that I'm subversive. Well if that's the case it's only the Prison Service, that's made me this way over the years.

Any way I'm going to finish off for now ok, all I can say to all my other comrades that are wrongfully convicted is that

'the Fight must go on'

Any letters will be welcomed.

Yours in struggle,

Roy John Burke

Prisoner of the State

Roy John Burke
HMP Frankland
Brasside
Durham
DH1 5YD