Ian has been convicted and sentenced to Life imprisonment twice for the same crime on exactly the same tenuous and speculative circumstantial evidence.

There are no confessions or admissions of guilt, no witnesses to any crime, no medical, or psychiatric evidence, no pathological evidence, and no forensic evidence of any sort that stands against Ian in this case.

Ian was first convicted in 1992 of the murder of his partner in 1990. In 1994, the conviction was overturned on appeal, the Appeal Court judges accepting that Ian had always maintained his innocence, that the conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and that vital corroborative evidence 'in his defence had been wrongly kept from the jury

A retrial was ordered, but the jury were again prevented from hearing that vital evidence and Ian was convicted for the second time. Appeal Court judges at a second appeal in 1996 contradicted those in the first appeal and upheld the conviction, so Ian is now the victim of contradictory Appeal Court rulings, and both convictions were given by juries unaware of that vitally important defence evidence.

However, there is far more involved in this case than what you have just read.

Why is the conviction still unsafe!

Vitally important corroborative defence evidence was twice prevented from reaching the jury - a situation that has never been properly addressed by the appeals process.

Fresh evidence by way of forensic opinion casts doubt on the prosecution case, the alleged cause of death and the adequacy of the police investigation.

Fresh evidence comes from witnesses whose account is clearly inconsistent with the police and prosecution version of events. Crucially that evidence was never disclosed by the police.

The original police investigation was so flawed that it became impossible for Ian to have a fair trial - which now also constitutes a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (E.C.H.R.).

There is no "proof beyond reasonable doubt" that Ian is guilty of anything, let alone murder! The whole case is based on nothing more than flimsy and speculative circumstantial evidence, and the Crown Prosecution Service, (C.P.S.), have admitted as much in a letter to lan�s family.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (C.C.R.C.) Have acknowledged that the conviction is "unsafe" by referring it back to the Court of Appeal for a further appeal against conviction. They can only do so if they are sure there is a good chance that the conviction will be overturned.

What�s happened since the 2nd conviction and appeal

As noted, following a 2 year investigation, the Criminal Cases Review Commission have referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, primarily because of the failings of Merseyside Police.

The case was also referred to by the Law Commission, (Law Comm. Report no 245), *in relation to Defence evidence that was not admissible in court. The Law Commission cited that evidence as being "exculpatory" - in other words, showing Ian to be free from any blame.

The Government have subsequently accepted the Law Commission proposals for a change *in the law, in part relying on Ian's case to do so. Clearly there was a fault in the law, which further supports the claim that the conviction cannot be "safe", and that it was impossible for Ian to have had a fair trial.

A Police Complaints investigation was reluctantly instigated by the Police Complaints Authority, who said it wasn't that they didn't believe Ian, but they felt they couldn't substantiate any complaints under the old standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Under the new standard, the Balance of Probabilities, comments from police officers themselves would have proven them guilty of plea-bargaining, bullying, detention under false pretences, and a host of other irregularities.

However, despite that disappointing result, Ian has been supported for a long time by organisations such as Liverpool Liberty, a member of the National Civil Rights Group. The case was also featured on Channel 4's "Clear My Name", a TV programme made by the producers of "Trial & Error". More and more individuals, professionals and notable organisations have added their support, and it is here that you too can make a difference.

What you can do to help

You may feel that this is nothing to do with you and that you shouldn't get involved. Thats perfectly understandable, but please remember that Ian has done nothing wrong, and that a killer or killers are still walking the streets.

This time it is Ian in those circumstances, but what if it was someone you knew personally, someone close to you, or maybe even you yourself. Surely then you would want others to do their best to help you correct any miscarriage of justice?

Even though the case is now going back to the Court of Appeal, Ian still needs your help until his name has been cleared. There are several ways that you can help.

Write to Ian's MP, Jane Kennedy, or write to your own MP voicing your concern.

Publicly speak out in support of Ian and encourage others to help.

You can contact Ian, his family, or their supporters for further information.

You can join the growing number of Ian's supporters by signing the public petition.

Or, simply write to Ian or his family to offer moral support.

Contact details - Please contact any of the following for further information. Thank you.

Ian Thomas
HMP Ashwell
Oakham
Rutland, LEI 5 7LF

Arthur Thomas, (Ian's father)
Telephone: 0151 -734-3029

Peter Gill
Liverpool Liberty
c/o Josephine Butler House
Myrtle Street, Liverpool, L7 4DN

Please copy and distribute this info.

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

Prison officers jailed for sadistic attack

Ex-chief inspectors of prisons call for public inquiry into extent of violence at Scrubs and why it was allowed to continue despite warnings

The biggest ever set of criminal trials of prison officers ended yesterday when three officers were jailed for a "sadistic" attack on a man at Wormwood Scrubs.

Six officers from the west London prison have been convicted out of a total of 27 who have gone on trial over the last 14 months.

Yesterday the last two chief inspectors of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham and Sir Stephen Tumin, called for a public inquiry into the extent of violence at the jail and why it continued for so long despite repeated warnings.

Police are investigating another 36 allegations of brutality, with at least 41 civil claims against the prison service for alleged assaults pending.

The officers sentenced at Blackfriars crown court yesterday attacked Steven Banks in March 1998 in the jail's segregation unit. They placed him in a headlock, taunted him by bragging about how easy it was to break his neck and threatened to kill him.

They then punched and kicked Banks, before propelling him into a wall with such force that he received an extensive head wound.

Judge Charles Byers, sentencing John Nicol, 39, the senior officer at the segregation unit to four years imprisonment, said: "If you behave like a vicious thug you will be punished like a vicious thug."

Fellow officer Robert Lawrie, 37, also received four years, and Darren Fryer, 33, received three-and-a-half years.

Mr Justice Byers said: "I can only conclude that this episode was done for your own bizarre and sadistic entertainment. Such behaviour is bound to outrage all right thinking people in a civilised society."

Last year three other officers were convicted for a separate assault. Andrew Jones, 34, Daniel Brewer, 35, and Craig Atkinson, 26, were jailed for 18 months, 15 months, and 12 months respectively for attacking a lifer, Timothy Donovan, who was held down in his cell and punched repeatedly after a dispute over a rug.

Sir David said that former home secretaries Michael Howard and Jack Straw, to whom he reported his concerns about brutality at the jail, should be summoned before any public inquiry to explain why they failed to act. "The responsibility to ensure that custody is exercised according to the law and in a civilised manner ultimately rests with ministers."

Sir David said he feared an internal prison service inquiry could lead to a cover up and that senior managers failed to do anything when they knew what was happening.

Daniel Machover, a solicitor representing more than 40 alleged victims, said the only way the full lessons could be learned was by a full public judicial inquiry. "The criminal cases represent the tip of a much larger iceberg of a culture of brutality and violence against inmates at Wormwood Scrubs in the 1990s."

Wormwood Scrubs, built in the Victorian age, has been dogged for decades by brutality allegations. Repeated inspection reports have damned it for brutality and poor conditions.

Mr Machover said: "Some prison officers felt they had the permission of society to go beyond the normal punishment of imprisonment and beat certain people up. There was also persistent racism."

The general medical council has also received 20 complaints about medical staff at the jail and alleged failings on their part in treating prisoners and blowing the whistle.

Francis Crook of the Howard League for Penal Reform said a "conspiracy of silence" had helped protect the violent officers: "A large number of people must have known something, prison officers, doctors, the board of visitors, chaplains, probation service.

"Every professional and volunteer in that prison must have known or suspected something and said nothing for years."

Mark Healy, chair of the Prison Officers Association, said: "People should remember that there were 27 people suspended for three to four years, who went through a lot of trauma and were found not guilty. There is no evidence it was going on for years. We condemn those who were found guilty."

In a speech in February, prison service chief Martin Narey came close to admitting that a blind eye had been turned. He said repeated inspection reports had uncovered illegal use of force.

Mr Narey said: "So for five years at least, but probably for much longer, we have an example of, at best, a failure to identify and deal with what the Inspectorate manage to uncover in a visit of just a few days. At worst, it is an illustration of a simple unwillingness to face up to the enormity of the task and do something about. In short, a betrayal of the most base kind of our duty to those in our care."

The Home Office has said it sees no need to set up a full public inquiry with the power to summon witnesses.

Special report: prisons , Vikram Dodd, Friday September 14 2001, The Guardian

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited