|
MOJUK: Newsletter Inside Out 30 Deaths in Custody film halted by legal threat from Police Federation The screening of a documentary on Friday July 07 2001, naming eight serving police officers as murderers, was cancelled by the threat of legal action. Relatives of some of the highest-profile victims of deaths in custody were in the audience to watch the film, Injustice. Less than 20 minutes before the start, the Metro cinema in London's West End halted the event after receiving a fax of a letter from lawyers acting for two officers. Russell, Jones and Walker, solicitors acting for the Police Federation, said in the fax that, while the officers could not expect to obtain or maintain an injunction preventing the screening, they would seek substantial damages from the cinema if the film was shown. None of the officers named in the film has been convicted of a crime. Kevin Blowe, secretary of the United Family and Friends Campaign, which helped organise the screening, said: "The cinema had no choice but to cancel the screening after it received a letter. "It arrived too late for the cinema to seek its own legal advice." The documentary explores the experiences of some of the relatives of those who have died in custody. Since 1969, there have been 1,000 such deaths in Britain, either in police station cells, in prisons, or in secure psychiatric hospitals. Ken Fero, the film's co-director and producer, spent seven years making it. He said last night: "The families are very angry, and speak frankly about the people whom they hold responsible for the death of their loved ones. "When they were told the screening had been cancelled, some people started crying. They believe that the police were responsible for the deaths, and now they are preventing their stories being told." Mr Fero said that one officer who had been named in the solicitors' letter was not identified in his film. Among those in the audience at the Metro were relatives of Roger Sylvester who died after being restrained by police at his Tottenham home in north London in 1999, and of Joy Gardner, who died six years earlier, also in north London, after police stuck 13 feet of tape round her face while trying to restrain her. Deborah Coles, co-director of the campaign group Inquest, said: "The film is an incredibly moving testimony which for the first time documents the struggles faced by families to get justice. "They are so angry that the screening was cancelled because it was a chance to tell the truth." The film has generated interest in the United States, South Africa, and Australia, where screenings are planned for the future. David Brown: Saturday July 07 2001, The Electronic Guardian ======================================= Innocent Eddie Gilfoyle - Campaign Newsletter - August 2001 Appeal Court Meeting London The 4th of July meeting held in London and organised and Chaired by Eddie's solicitor, Campbell Malone, was very well attended. Campbell Malone said he saw the meeting as a very good beginning for a campaign for change in the Appeal Court Process. Speaking at the meeting Michael Mansfield QC told the audience "The time has come to redefine what the Court of Appeal is truly about." The meeting was also addressed by Susannah Arthur, John Batt and Michael Topolski. Susannah in recent times represented John Kamara. He was released by the Court of Appeal after serving nearly twenty years imprisonment. John Batt and Michael Topolski are the solicitor and barrister in the case of Sally Clark. Sitting in the audience was a cross section of prominent lawyers, campaigners, and TV and newspaper journalists. These included the husband of Sally Clark, himself a lawyer and the renowned solicitor Gareth Pierce. The miscarriage of justice campaigns were well represented and included the campaigns for Michael Stone, Brian Parsons, Mark Barnsley Samar & Jawad and John Taft, - to name but a few. There were representatives from the Trial & Error and Rough Justice TV programmes. Apologies were received from Jim Nichol, solicitor for the Bridgewater 4 and representing Donald Pendleton, a case which is due to heard at the House of Lords in October. The Pendleton Case will question the role of the Court of Appeal. The day before the meeting the deficiencies in the Appeal Court process were highlighted in a very good article featured in the Guardian and written by Bob Woofinden. The article spanned two pages and questioned whether the Court of Appeal is failing to do its job. Interviewed for the article Campbell Malone explained that his colleagues within the legal profession had over the last twelve months noticed a worrying trend within the Court of Appeal were appeals were being rejected in the face of compelling fresh evidence or new arguments never before a jury. The article mentioned Eddie's case and the case's of Stephen Craven, Brian Parsons and Donald Pendleton. At the meeting Michael Mansfield called for a review of the 'role and powers' of the Appeal Court Judges to prevent them from using their discretion in an anti democratic way. He said that the Gilfoyle case came before the Court of Appeal on two separate occasions and by the time the defence finished with the case it was quite different from the one the jury heard. He said the Court of Appeal are actually reconvicting appellants and we seem to be going back to a time which predates the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4. He told the audience that we do not want the Court of Appeal to be second guessing juries and there is a very disturbing trend that makes the threshold for the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to refer cases even higher. Susannah Arthur said that the Court of Appeal protects the system itself and is not concerned with justice. She said "I believe the Court of Appeal makes its mind up before hearing the evidence in court." In the case of John Kamara she said "They twisted the evidence in the Kamara case to protect the system." She went on to accuse the CCRC of failing in its role to properly investigate and identify miscarriage of justice cases. John Batt told the meeting that the appeal against conviction in the case of Sally Clark, should never have been rejected. He said the appeal was supported by 'some of the best brains in criminal law.' He recounted the circumstances of this appalling miscarriage of justice and explained how the Court of Appeal dealt with the case. He said "The Court of Appeal put themselves in the place of the jury," and "They should not become a second jury, second guessing what the original jurors would have found." Following the rejection of Eddie's appeal last December barrister Michael Toploski met with Michael Mansfield and Campbell Malone to discuss Eddie's case and the case of Sally Clark. Mike Toploski told the meeting "The Court of Appeal fails to appreciate what its proper role should be." He explained that only about 5% of cases brought to the Court of Appeal are overturned, - 95% fail. Good ideas and suggestions came from the audience and Campbell Malone and his colleagues are discussing ways to move the campaign forward. He and his colleagues believe that a good way forward is for the lawyers and the campaigners to come together to push hard for a change in the role of the Court of Appeal. He said if necessary we should push for change through Parliament, the House of Lords or Europe. We as campaigners must give the lawyers our help and support. The Appeal Court Campaign is supported by Liberty who at their AGM in June passed a motion, proposed by South Wales Liberty, to make contact with the campaign and to help distribute any information provided by the campaign to Liberty members and especially to utilise the Lawyers for Liberty network to seek support from within the legal profession. Following the meeting, a very good article was written by Jon Robins in the legal publication 'The Lawyer' (23rd July). The article was very detailed and discussed the content of the meeting and recounted what the speakers had to say. The response to the 'Statement of Purpose forms' was very good. Campbell Malone received many forms from the legal profession, campaigns and campaigning groups. We need to step this up and campaigns need to approach prominent individuals and get them to sign the 'Statement of Purpose forms' to pledge their support. Campaigns need to approach their own MP's, trade union organisations and media contacts for support. (Further Statement of Purpose forms and model letter can be obtained from the Eddie Gilfoyle Campaign address. All forms to be returned to Campbell Malone's Office - the address is on the form - Please mark the envelope 'Appeal Court Issue'). Through this newsletter,and other sources we will keep you updated with regard to the progress of the Appeal Court Campaign and future events Other News Three prisoners from Frankland Prison have won the right to challenge the Governor over policy decisions which they claim, lead to innocent inmates suffering harsher conditions than guilty ones. They have been granted a judicial review which will be heard at court in October or November. The policy in many prisons is that privileges may be denied if an inmate refuses to address the offending behaviour that resulted in their sentence. This has obvious difficulties for innocent inmates such as Eddie who suffer as a consequence. Since his conviction Eddie has consistently refused to attend any prison course aimed at addressing his so called offending behaviour. This refusal results in loss of privileges such as less domestic visits and longer periods confined to a cell. It can also affect eligibility for parole. According to regulations, inmates who maintain their innocence should not be treated adversely, yet in practice this is what happens. We hope the court hearing has a successful outcome. Innocent Eddie Gilfoyle HMP Wakefield You can find out more about Eddies case by writing to the address below. Innocent Eddie Gilfoyle Campaign Justice for James Ashley Campaign The Justice for James Ashley Campaign was launched on Saturday the 18th of August. The meeting was attended by about 200 people. James Ashley was shot dead by an Armed Response Unit (ARU) from Sussex Police in 1998. The trial at the Old Bailey was a total travesty anda the Officer responsible for shooting James, P.C Sherwood was acquitted, along with the other four officers later at a similar trial in Wolverhampton. The Judge Injustice Rafferty presided over the case, this is the same Injustice Rafferty who sent Michael Stone to Jail, Surprise Surprise. The Family and Campaign have vowed to carry on the fight for Justice for James Ashley. The meeting decided that they will carry the fight to the door of the Labour Party conference on the 30th September ,Brighton is the heart of the Sussex Police, so we can do both at the same time. Further info: Justice for James Ashley Campaign, (write c/o MOJUK). |