Scottish Hostages, Tommy Campbell and Joe Steel ‘Are at Liberty’

Tommy and Joe. who have been in prison for 17 years. Were convicted of what became known as the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars murders have been freed pending the outcome of a new appeal. On Tuesday morning 11th December 2001, they were granted interim liberty, by three appeal judges. . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

were in the High court on the 4/5th December, to hear their application for JR against, CCRC’s refusal to refer their case to appeal. Mostly technical arguments, Judgement reserved, expected early January 2002.

Mark Barnsley, HMP Whitemoor, his supporters are holding a picket of the Home Office on Thursday 20th December 12-30pm - 2.30pm, (Y’all invited, ropes and ladders from MOJUK).

On the Move:

Satpal Ram, arrived at HMP Blantyre House, Cat C, on Monday 10th December, this is his 71st move and the 36th different prison, (average prison moves for a lifer 6).

Samar Alami from HMP Holloway to HMP Cookhamwood

Jimmy Ingram from HMP Maidstone to HMP Swaleside

Pippy Perry from HMP Featherstone, back to HMP Birmingham and now to HMP Stafford

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

Phil Taylor - Fighting for Justice - after Injustice

My name is Phil Taylor I am a 35 year old male, married with two children and I am currently serving an eight year custodial sentence. I have served almost over four years of this sentence and throughout that time I have fought an endless battle to prove my innocence against the false and malicious allegations of rape and buggery on a minor for which I have been convicted.

I have no previous Criminal record

I hope that people who read the details of my case will understand my plight and support me in my quest to have this injustice against me overturned. I hope that I can gain the support of legal, medical and forensic experts who may be willing to give assistance, any help would be greatly appreciated.

The prosecution case against me

I was arrested at my home on the 19th February 1997 when I was informed that a step niece had made an allegation of rape against me. The "alleged victim " claimed that for over a period of two years I had raped and buggered her on a nightly basis. The police however changed this allegation and I was actually charged for the period during July August 1994. This period conveniently coincided with a period of time when I resided with the family of the "alleged victim". My brother was married to the mother of the said child and they had three other children.

The allegations against me were that I removed the "alleged victim" from a top bunk bed, (which did not exist), in a bedroom which she shared with two brothers, had taken her to a room next to her mother and step-father's bedroom where I had allegedly repeatedly raped and buggered her every night over a period of two years.

The story behind the allegations

The "allegations" were first made on the 23rd January 1997 by the "alleged victim" to a drama teacher at her school during or after a "roll play" class. The police and Social Services were not made aware of the allegations until the 28th January 1997. On the 4th February 1997 the "alleged victim" took a letter (this letter was in question form) to her schoolteacher that apparently made reference to the alleged abuse. The police and social Services then attended the home of the "alleged victim" and notified the parents of the allegations, the parents had not been aware of any of the allegations up to this point.

The parents advised the police and the Social services that in their opinion there was no way that what was being said could have happened.

The Police and the Social Services at that point advised the parents that "they should shut up, and keep their opinions to themselves".

They were also advised that if they (in the future) attended the Trial they too would be arrested.

At the Trial the mother attended for 15 minutes to confirm the "alleged victim" was her daughter.

On the 7th February 1997 the Police Child Protection Team interviewed the "alleged victim" and two doctors also examined her. In the interview she claimed that her brother had witnessed her in the bed with me at the house where she stated the alleged abuse took place. Subsequently the brother was then interviewed on the 9th February 1997 and he said that he had never witnessed her being in bed with me at that house but said it had happened at another address. And could clearly remember it being on a Saturday. It was his recollection that at the time I had my penis in the "alleged victims anus" whilst under a duvet /blanket, he came to this conclusion because of noises he said he heard. He also stated that he knew of such things from articles he had read in the "Sunday Mirror".

The "alleged victim " however denied this and said the abuse had only taken place, were they live at their present address. The brother said that he had first become aware of the matter, "when his sister had shown him the letter she had written to her schoolteacher, before taking the letter to school. The parents were however not aware of this letter until the police and Social Services informed them.

Medical Examination

The Court was told that two police doctors carried out a full examination on the "alleged victim".

Their conclusion was that the vagina was completely normal, and the hymen intact. They stated that the vaginal opening was very small, being less that 5.mm for a person of the "alleged victims" age. They also stated that there were no tearing, markings or signs of any stretching of the vagina.

An examination of the anus revealed a small line of venous congestion 1cm from the anus, which was stated in one doctors witness statement as being consistent with sexual abuse and would not rule out vaginal abuse. the doctor concluded that this would have taken place a matter of weeks prior to the examination, but both doctors concluded that there were no other signs of sexual abuse and that the ‘alleged victim’ had normal anal tone, and that their findings would not date back to 1994, when the alleged abuse was supposed to have occurred.

Testimony of the main witnesses at the Trial

The "alleged victim" stated that I had repeatedly raped and buggered her every night for two years, she said I had hurt her a lot, yet she had not screamed, cried or shouted out to her mother and stepfather who were in the adjoining room as per the layout of the house. The mother and stepfather had heard nothing and due to the actions of the investigating officer neither of these parents attended the trial. (Although as previously stated the mother did attend for 15 minutes to confirm she was the ‘alleged victims’ mother. even then she was transported to the court by the investigating officer).

The "alleged victims" brother a prosecution witness " said he wanted to change the year it happened from six years ago to three years ago now, because he stated that he and his mother had spoken before the trial and that his mother had told him that it was only three years ago.

The Investigating Officer transported the two main witnesses to and from the Court, even though he had initially been called as a full witness by the defence. He had remained throughout the hearing in the Court listening to the "alleged victims" evidence.

When the two police doctors attended Court to give their evidence, on the third day, the investigating officer took them into a side room for 30 minutes.

When the first Doctor gave her evidence it then came to light that no full medical examination had taken place and that she was going on information provided by the investigating officer.

She was asked what she would have been looking for in a medical examination, she stated distress, tearing and other internal damage. When asked if she found any, she said "NO".

The second doctor said she would have expected to find damage, but had found none.

Judge's Summing Up

The Judge in his summing up said that the facts of the case were, "Who was telling the truth?" He went on to say that the jury could listen to what the two doctors for the prosecution had said, "and it come down to this does it not, the prosecution cannot point to the evidence and say this proves she has been raped, and similarly the defence cannot point to the evidence and say this proves she has not been raped, she might have, might not have, you decide"!

In regards to the ‘alleged victims’ brothers evidence, the judge said, "if what he says he saw happened in another house, then it has got nothing to do with this case as all the allegations are said to have taken place at their present house. If however you feel he may be wrong about the house then you can accept his evidence."

Things I have become aware of since my conviction

.The Courts assigned the Defence Barrister themselves even though I had been led to believe that my solicitor had assigned her.

There was no expert medical opinion for the defence at trial. However having obtained an independent report in June 2001 from a distinguished expert. He is of the opinion that both prosecution doctors gave ‘misinformed and wrong’ evidence to the jury by their stating that the findings on the anus were consistent with sexual abuse. As such findings are found on anyone. He also states that repeated sexual intercourse of the vagina would result in the permanent rupture of the hymen and that repeated anal abuse would result in chronic changes to the anus with the loss of anal tone. He concluded that the findings are no different to that of a person whom had never been sexually assaulted or whom had never made an allegation of rape or buggery.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission CCRC, state that this new evidence would not have an impact upon the safety of my conviction. They said that the case has been proven because the ‘alleged victim’ said it happened.

Counsels opinion

Counsel stated to me that in her opinion "I had a fair trial". However in documentary evidence on file, she states to the solicitor that the evidence of the complainant was totally inconsistent.

There are a number of other issues connected with my case, which make the conviction against me unsafe. I need your help to prove my innocence.

Should you feel you could assist me in proving my innocence you can contact me directly.

I have a fuller account of the events, which I will mail to anyone requesting same.

Phil, would be glad to hear from any hostages wishing to write.

P Taylor AP 6337

HMP Wandsworth

Heathfield Road

London SW18 3HS

Phil, has lodged papers in the High Court, seeking a Judicial Review of the CCRC’s decision not to refer his case to the court of appeal.

-===================================

Kevin Sheridan died while on remand at Brixton Prison.

No More Irish Deaths in Custody

In quest into the death of Kevin Sheridan Held at H.M Coroners Court Southwark 5th and 6th December 2001

Verdict Suicide

Members of the Irish deaths in custody campaign attended the hearing to both support the family and record the proceedings. Below is a short statement from the campaign.

We are appaled at the catalogue of mistakes, gross negligence and the total lack of basic care given to Kevin Sheridan during his short period in custody. We feel that this all accumulatively lead to the death of Kevin Sheridan while on remand at Brixton Prison.

* There was no evidence linking Kevin to the offence for what he was being held on and charged with. Kevin expressed very clearly to his family that he was being fitted up.

* Insufficient information recorded /shared formally by police staff on duty (The fact that Kevin had self harmed and was suicidal), which had been given to them by Kevin’s widow Mary Sheridan on a number of occasions while he was held in custody at Peckham Police Station.

* Alterations in a written form made to the Prisoner Escort Record, by person/s unknown, which we feel had an impact on the possible care offered to Kevin.

* Failure of Medical and care staff to include important recorded information in the assessment of Kevin’s needs.

* Complete inability of staff to put into practice, basic policy regarding the care and needs of Prisoners who self harm and are suicidal. Thus depriving Kevin of basic care.

* The failure of prison staff to act on the serious issues raised by Kevin during a one to one session with a staff member on the evening of the 6th February 2001.

* The failure to use the proper internal alarm system to alert other officers of the need for assistance in the case of emergencies. Thus wasting valuable time in the case of Kevin.

* Inadequately trained staff unable to administer even the basic emergency care of prisoners.

* Damaged first aid equipment vital in the resuscitation of Kevin Sheridan.

* Missing first aid equipment necessary for the revival of Kevin while in Cardiac arrest.

* Emergency services unable to gain access to the prison leading to the waste of seven minutes, which in Kevin’s case was a matter of life and death.

We feel there is a need to look at all the incidents mentioned above which took place, and why this situation was aloud to happen. Over and over again we see prisoners die in custody, followed by Inquests, which make recommendations. Yet time and time again we witness the prison service refusal to put these recommendations into good working practice in the care of prisoners. As a result of this inaction the very basic human right the right to life is not given to prisoners.

The Lawrence Inquiry very clearly states the presence of Institutional Racism within the Police service, and we would argue that the Prison service is a reflection of the same service. This was proved by a study carried out by the Commission for Racial Equality, carried out within Brixton Prison. The findings of that study clearly showed that the treatment of both Black and Irish prisoners was different from the treatment of other white English prisoners, (that is not to say that their treatment is much better at the best of times).

And that both Irish and Black prisoners were subjected to abuse and ill treatment by the Prison staff.

Brixton Prison staff should know that the last letter to the Governor of Brixton prison by Kevin Sheridan very clearly illustrates that if the staff there had shown even an inch of the compassion that Kevin showed them, he would be alive and a free man today.

We therefore demand the following and hope that you are able to support us in our demands

1. An Independent Public Inquiry into all deaths in custody.

2. Full Ethnic Monitoring of all Irish People who are taken into custody.

3. That the Irish Embassy is informed of the deaths of all Irish People while in custody.

4. That all individuals are treated with the dignity, care and attention that is necessary for their well being while in the care of the institution which hold them in custody.

5. The most basic right, the right to life is protected.

For further details contact Terry Stewart via MOJUK