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

Sussex Police taking courses in voodoo

Shoot First - First Aid afterwards

MOJUK has it on the highest authority that Sussex Police officers are taking courses in voodoo. That in the case they shoot anyone else dead, they will be able to resurrect them on the spot.

Their new policy of 'Shoot First - First Aid Afterwards' is ridiculous in the extreme. It will mean more deaths, not less. Guns kill, police with guns kill with impunity.

Nothing has been learned by Sussex Police in the killing of James Ashley.

MOJUK firmly believe that they did not want to learn anything and received very generous help from John Denham MP, Minister for Police in refusing justice to the Ashley family.

Sussex police are now claiming that James Ashley was shot dead because a dog started barking!

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

Police are trained to help shot suspects

A POLICE force condemned by the Home Secretary for shooting dead a naked, unarmed man is training its marksmen to save the lives of any suspect who may be shot in future.

Armed officers in Sussex have received training in invasive medical procedures and administering life-saving drugs. They have also been issued with emergency trauma dressings.

The "shoot and save" policy was adopted after criticism by David Blunkett forced the resignation of Paul Whitehouse as chief constable over the shooting of James Ashley, 40, in the bedroom of his Hastings flat four years ago.

A Sussex Police Authority report into the incident revealed that Ken Jones, the chief constable, wants to meet the Ashley family to apologise for the shooting.

The report reveals that police feared the early-morning raid had been compromised when one officer knocked over an ironing board and started a dog barking.

The marksmen were ordered in without delay and Ashley, who had a previous manslaughter conviction, was shot dead as he rose from the bed where he was sleeping with his girlfriend to switch on the light.

"No one set out that fateful day to deliberately end the life of James Ashley," says the report.

"The new chief constable has said that while no words of his can hope to assuage the Ashley family's sense of loss, he is willing to meet with them to make an apology for what happened and provide reassurance that everything possible is being done to reduce the risk of such a thing happening again."

A Sussex police spokesman said: "We have trained up a number of officers to be able to give tactical, emergency medical support.

"But as well as this we will also ask for back-up from paramedics from the ambulance service on any pre-arranged operations where armed officers are present."

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

Justice for James Ashley Campaign

Louise Ellman MP, calls for a public enquiry into the killing of James Ashley

Louise Ellman MP Liverpool, Riverside, raised the killing of James Ashley in the House of Commons yesterday. Her speech completely condemned the police action and subsequent cover up. Some extracts follow the complete speech is at end of message.

. . . the inadequacy of police accountability and a lack of concern for the bereaved.

. . . Jimmy Ashley's family are my constituents. I have witnessed their deep grief at their loss but that grief has been followed by anger and incredulity that no one has been brought to account for that needless death.

. . . Indeed, in the four years since, little has been revealed in the public sphere, little action has been taken, no one has been brought to account for what happened and it looks as if few lessons have been learned.

. . . They were never officially informed that James Ashley had died and they have never been officially told what happened.

. . . the family were to hear on television Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse publicly casting false aspersions on Jimmy's character . . . . .

. . . .reports were produced and delivered to the PCA, which, following its normal procedures, issued letters accepting the adequacy of the reports. Yet neither report has ever been published and neither report has ever been exposed to public scrutiny.

. . . information in the reports has become known only because there were leaks to the press,

. . . It is a matter of importance, for the record, that, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the reports has been denied.

. . . The Wilding report found a complete failure of corporate duty by Sussex police.

. . . The Hampshire inquiry concluded that three police officers lied about their intelligence in order to persuade Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan to authorise the raid.

. . . Sir John Hoddinott concluded that Paul Whitehouse, the then chief constable,

. . . "wilfully failed to tell the truth as he knew it, he did so without reasonable excuse or justification and what he published and said was misleading."

. . . Sir John found evidence against Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan.

. . . That included criminal misfeasance and neglect of duty, discreditable conduct and aiding and abetting the chief constable's false statements.

. . . There was suggested evidence of collusion between some or all of the chief officers and an arguable case of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

. . . The reports have been kept secret

. . . and have never been available for public scrutiny.

. . . The CPS refused to prosecute senior officers.

. . . At a separate trial in Wolverhampton the same month, the officers who planned the raid were acquitted

. . . when the CPS offered no evidence, alleging that the depth of corporate failure was too great to make any individual responsible.

. . . Two of the officers involved were promoted with backdated pay increases-an insult to the memory of James Ashley and an absolute affront to his bereaved family.

. . . What should happen now? It is self-evident that the criminal justice system has failed the Ashleys. I call for the immediate publication of the Hoddinott and Wilding reports and for a full public inquiry into the events that led up to the shooting of James Ashley and in its aftermath, including the handling of the complaints.

. . . The Ashley case exposes a culture of secrecy and cover-up.

. . . Major reform of police accountability is urgently required to ensure that there is justice in the many outstanding cases in which it is believed that there has been wrongdoing by the police, whether that is the ultimate wrongdoing-shooting dead innocent people-or any other kind.

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

Hansard House of Commons, Monday 11th February 2002

Louise Ellman MP (Liverpool, Riverside): The fatal shooting of the sleeping, naked and unarmed James Ashley at around 4.20 am on 15 January 1998, when five of a group of 25 heavily armed police burst into his Hastings flat, demonstrates the failings of Sussex police, the inadequacy of police accountability and a lack of concern for the bereaved.

A single bullet fired at point blank range by Police Constable Chris Sherwood killed James Ashley, aged 39, as he stumbled out of bed dazed by the light of the torch shone by the raiding police. No arms or drugs were found on the premises, contrary to the information on which authorisation for the raid rested.

Jimmy Ashley's family are my constituents. I have witnessed their deep grief at their loss but that grief has been followed by anger and incredulity that no one has been brought to account for that needless death. Indeed, in the four years since, little has been revealed in the public sphere, little action has been taken, no one has been brought to account for what happened and it looks as if few lessons have been learned.

The Ashleys first heard of Jimmy's killing through chance television and teletext viewing. Indeed, at one stage a neighbour who had been listening to the radio approached them. They heard that someone who answered the description of their son had been shot dead by police in an area of Hastings where they knew their son lived. No name was given at that stage but they suspected that something was wrong.

The family made a series of telephone calls to Sussex police, to coroners and to a range of other individuals and organisations. They were given little information and even less help. They were never officially informed that James Ashley had died and they have never been officially told what happened. It was only after their numerous telephone calls, each striving to access the information that they needed, that they finally established that the dead man was their son and brother.

To make a tragic situation even worse, a few hours after stumbling on the news of Jimmy's death, the family were to hear on television Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse publicly casting false aspersions on Jimmy's character and insisting that his officers had acted properly.

The family made a referral to the Police Complaints Authority. It was after that complaint was made that the PCA commissioned reports into what had happened. Barbara Wilding, then assistant chief constable of Kent constabulary, was asked to investigate, and the late Sir John Hoddinott, then the chief constable of Hampshire police, was asked to produce a report into the chief constable's involvement in what happened. Those reports were produced and delivered to the PCA, which, following its normal procedures, issued letters accepting the adequacy of the reports. Yet neither report has ever been published and neither report has ever been exposed to public scrutiny.

The information in the reports has become known only because there were leaks to the press, specifically to The Guardian, which published a detailed article in 2001. I draw on much of the information in the leaked articles for my comments.

It is a matter of importance, for the record, that, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the reports has been denied. The Wilding report found a complete failure of corporate duty by Sussex police. The Hampshire inquiry concluded that three police officers lied about their intelligence in order to persuade Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan to authorise the raid. The report found that the raid was

 "authorised on intelligence that was not merely exaggerated, it was determinably false . . . there was a plan to deceive and the evidence concocted."

That is absolutely damning.

The report also showed that the guidelines on firearms put together by the Association of Chief Police Officers was breached. Experts on firearms and the law told Kent police that even if the intelligence had been correct, the firearms should not have been authorised.

The chief constable was castigated. Sir John Hoddinott concluded that Paul Whitehouse, the then chief constable,

 "wilfully failed to tell the truth as he knew it, he did so without reasonable excuse or justification and what he published and said was misleading."

Sir John found evidence against Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan. That included criminal misfeasance and neglect of duty, discreditable conduct and aiding and abetting the chief constable's false statements. There was suggested evidence of collusion between some or all of the chief officers and an arguable case of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

 These statements were contained in those investigation reports. The reports have been kept secret-apart from the leaks made to the press-and have never been available for public scrutiny. After four years, it is reasonable to ask what action has been taken in the face of such gross abuses.

I note that there are a number of players in the complaints system for the police, which has relevance when we consider that four years have passed. Those players are the Police Complaints Authority, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Sussex police authority and others. In considering the comments that I am about to make, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider what the role of those key players should have been and where the dereliction of duty lay.

The CPS refused to prosecute senior officers. In May 2001, the presiding judge halted the Old Bailey trial of the police officer who shot James Ashley dead. At a separate trial in Wolverhampton the same month, the officers who planned the raid were acquitted when the CPS offered no evidence, alleging that the depth of corporate failure was too great to make any individual responsible. Two of the officers involved were promoted with backdated pay increases-an insult to the memory of James Ashley and an absolute affront to his bereaved family.

Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan was suspended on full pay for nearly three years before being retired permanently on ill-health grounds with a full retirement pension at the age of 43. That enabled him to escape disciplinary procedures, yet, on 21 March 1998, during the debate on the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into police complaints in the aftermath of anger about the consequences of the Hillsborough tragedy, the House was promised that the police would no longer be able to evade disciplinary action in that way. That promise was given to the House in March 1998, yet four years afterwards apparently nothing has happened.

Indeed, the only definitive action has been the resignation of Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse in June 2001. That followed an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I praise the Home Secretary for his resolute action. His was the first clear action from the Home Office that led to the police having to face up to the consequences of what they had done. In the days that followed the Home Secretary's statement, Paul Whitehouse started to criticise the Home Secretary and queried the legitimacy of his statement, but the result was obtained, and Paul Whitehouse, the chief constable at the time of the shooting, resigned.

During the past two months disciplinary charges have been filed against three police officers. I presume that the hearings that relate to the disciplinary charges will be internal, not a matter for public scrutiny.

What should happen now? It is self-evident that the criminal justice system has failed the Ashleys. I call for the immediate publication of the Hoddinott and Wilding reports and for a full public inquiry into the events that led up to the shooting of James Ashley and in its aftermath, including the handling of the complaints.

 Today, by a great coincidence, I have seen a report submitted by Sussex police authority that says that the police inspectorate has carried out an investigation, that 26 recommendations about changes in the way that the Sussex police operate have been made and that many of them have been implemented. However, having read that report, I still find it impossible to ascertain whether all those recommendations have been implemented. Indeed, none of them refer to the need for public scrutiny of what happened on the early morning when James Ashley was shot dead. Nothing in that report tells us how we should overhaul the police complaints system.

In a letter to me dated 27 June 2001, Sir Alistair Graham, the chairman of the Police Complaints Authority, stated:

"it is not possible to let you have a copy of Barbara Wilding's and John Hoddinott's reports as section 80 of the Police Act 1996 specifically debars us from doing this except in special circumstances".

After four years of non-action, I plead those special circumstances. I specifically reject the explanation passed to me by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 8 January 2002 when I was informed that the reports could not be made public because the Sussex police authority would not agree to it. It cannot be acceptable for a police authority that is in the dock itself to veto action of such great public importance. I do not intend to shoot the messenger, but I castigate the ruling of the police authority.

 It is clear from the experience of the shooting of James Ashley and subsequent events that the whole system of police accountability must be overhauled. Scrutiny of that issue and use of police firearms must be improved. The needs of bereaved families must be paramount. No other family must be treated in the uncaring and cavalier fashion suffered by the Ashleys. No police officer should be able to evade disciplinary action by taking early retirement. The promises made to the House in 1998 must be fulfilled.

 I applaud the steps taken by my right hon. Friend in responding to my questions and representations in recent months. He was willing to listen to those representations and I was present when he met the Ashley family. I have been impressed by the way in which he listened carefully to the information on the train of events, which beggars belief. I commend him for initiating two new inquiries about which he informed me in responses to written questions. I should be grateful if he could indicate the scope of those inquiries and confirm that all the reports emanating from them will be published and subject to open scrutiny.

Public disclosure of James Ashley's killing will bring some comfort to the Ashleys, whose indefatigable and determined efforts have kept the issue in the public eye. I applaud them. It will also serve a wider public interest. In the past decade, the number of times when police officers have been armed has trebled from 3,722 to 10,928. Some 57 people have been shot, 24 of whom have died. I am concerned in this debate about the shooting of James Ashley, but questions could equally be asked about Harry Stanley, who was shot in September 1999 when the table leg that he was carrying was mistaken for a sawn-off shotgun, or Andrew Kernan, a mentally ill schizophrenic who was shot dead by police in Liverpool on 13 July 2001. Many others have been shot dead without explanation.

The Ashley case exposes a culture of secrecy and cover-up. The means of investigation have shown themselves to be powerless and ineffective. I made a number of representations to the PCA on behalf of the Ashley family. Although I received sympathetic hearings, I did not feel that my representations were treated with the seriousness and urgency that they deserved. The Police Complaints Authority acted slowly. It may well explain that slowness by reference to the nature of the proceedings in which it is trapped, but I complained more than once that I was not being kept informed about how the inquiries were progressing. When the Police Complaints Authority referred me to other police authorities or to the Crown Prosecution Service, I felt that it was abdicating its responsibility.

It is extremely important that organisations that exist to deal with matters of public interest recognise the important role played by Members of Parliament as public representatives. Members pursue matters of public interest and matters that relate to their constituents. When a Member of Parliament is determined to get to the truth and to secure a satisfactory answer, he or she will not be deterred by a failure to communicate.

Major reform of police accountability is urgently required to ensure that there is justice in the many outstanding cases in which it is believed that there has been wrongdoing by the police, whether that is the ultimate wrongdoing-shooting dead innocent people-or any other kind. That is important also if the public consent that is essential for good policing is to be retained. I call on my right hon. Friend to complete the positive and welcome approach that he has demonstrated in his dealings with me in recent months by acceding to the renewed requests that I have made in this debate.

John Denham MP, Minister for Police in replying wept copious tears but made it clear there is unlikely to be a public enquiry

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

Police Suspended Over Trial Collapse

Three detectives were suspended yesterday after a disastrous murder investigation led to five men walking free from court this week because they had been illegally bugged.

Senior officers and relatives of the dead man, who was shot and then dumped 150 miles away, are desperately looking for ways to revive the case after its dismissal by Mr Justice Newman at Nottingham crown court.

Eileen Corley, whose son Mark was allegedly "executed" after a row over a fight in rural Lincolnshire, said that she would lobby in London and Europe to see her son's killers brought to book.

The officers - Tony White, a detective chief inspector, Roger Bannister, detective inspector, and Steve Thorn, detective sergeant - have been taken off all operational duties by the Lincolnshire force while the police complaints authority conducts an inquiry.

The police, smarting from the judge's condemnation of their "flagrant breaches" of criminal procedure, have also begun a check on the papers. John Stoddard, an assistant chief constable, said: "We are disappointed at the outcome of the case, having spent many months of intense investigation."

The body of Mr Corley, 22, was hidden in a field near Darlington, Co Durham, five months after he was shot in the back of the head. Five men were accused of conspiring to kill him, after detectives carried out a surveillance operation in the Lincolnshire towns of Grantham and Sleaford.

Robert Sutherland, 36, of Bathgate in Scotland, had pleaded not guilty to murder and conspiracy to murder together with four Grantham men - John Smith, 27, Gary Self, 36, Danny Gray, 21, and John Toseland, 59. They all denied conspiracy.

The five were due for trial at Nottingham two weeks ago, but the case was dismissed on Tuesday by the judge after prolonged legal argument before the jury was sworn in. Freeing the men, he said detectives had flouted the law and court rules by secretly taping the five talking to their lawyers at Grantham and Sleaford police stations.

The judge said: "The consequence of the police having deliberately obtained confidential information [in] the inquiry has led to a position where they have compromised the trial process."

Mrs Corley, 48, said yesterday that the ruling had devastated her family who felt completely let down.

"I feel as though the judge has turned a gun on me and my family. I am not giving up. I am going to take this as high as I can," she said

The judge told the court there was no doubt that Mr Coley had been "executed by a brutal shooting".

The prosecution would have argued that it followed claims that one of the defendants had been attacked earlier by Mr Coley and felt that a subsequent court hearing had denied him justice.

Martin Wainwright, 31/01/02, The Guardian

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

Second trial in doubt as officers suspended

Three police officers at the centre of an illegal bugging investigation were last night suspended from duty as the future of another major murder inquiry was left in doubt.

Lincolnshire police said that it had called in the Police Complaints Authority over allegations that the three had illegally taped confidential conversations between solicitors and clients being held in custody.

But The Times has learnt that another murder case supervised by the same officers is now also in jeopardy. The case is still going through the courts but lawyers for the defence are applying to the Crown Prosecution Service for full disclosure of all covert surveillance by police.

One of the lawyers said. "If we find out that any bugging at all has been going on as part of the police investigation then this trial is likely to collapse as well."

Local defence solicitors also said that they would now look at old case files to see if there were other instances when public interest immunity certificates were granted which might now be challenged.

Intrusive surveillance, including breaking into homes and offices to plant bugs, is an important weapon in the drive to combat organised crime, particularly drug smuggling.

Although covert surveillance is strictly regulated in an attempt to prevent illegal operations by the police, many lawyers suspect that much unauthorised bugging takes place.

Peter Binning, of Corker Binning, the solicitors, said: "The reality is that the law is honoured more in the breach. If they can get away with it, people do it." He was speaking after the trial of five men accused of a gangland murder collapsed after Lincolnshire Police broke the law by taping them talking to their lawyers.

As the Crown Prosecution Service began a review into the case, there was widespread condemnation of what lawyers regarded as a fundamental breach of legal rights.

David McIntosh, President of the Law Society, said: "Confidentiality is one of the core values of the solicitors’ profession. Despite the severity of the case the judge was right to condemn this intrusion into the solicitor/client relationship. The right to confidential legal advice must not be compromised – it is a vital component in a fair and just legal system."

A spokesman for the Bar said: "There needs to be clear guidance so that the police know what the limits are to evidence-gathering. The circumstances under which police can conduct surveillance are strictly defined. If people don’t feel they can obtain confidential legal advice then that is the end of legal advice for anyone."

John Cooper, barrister, said: "What is far more worrying than bugging in some police stations is the prison conference rooms, where lawyers discuss detailed aspects of the case." He would conduct a search of such rooms before any meeting with a client.

Another problem was advice to police stations by phone – usually at night. "These conversations are supposed to be confidential. But are they? It’s not that this happens in every police station but it’s the perception that there may not be confidentiality. That’s what’s damaging to the police."

Intrusive surveillance operations involving entering a property and planting a bugging device must be authorised by a Chief Constable. Except in emergencies, authorisation requires prior approval by one of six surveillance commissioners who are overseen by Sir Andrew Leggatt, the Chief Surveillance Officer.

The authorising officer must believe that surveillance is necessary for "preventing or detecting serious crime, and that the taking of the action is proportionate to what it seeks to achieve".

A serious crime involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conducted by a large number of people in pursuit of a common purpose or involves an offence for which a person aged 21 or over is likely to be sent to jail for at least three years.

In some sensitive operations a Commissioner must approve an authorisation before it becomes effective. These involve homes, hotel bedrooms or offices, or surveillance likely to reveal matters subject to legal privilege, confidential personal information or confidential journalistic material.

The law allows police to bug prison and police cells and conversations between lawyers and clients if they believe that serious crime is being plotted.

Mr Binning said: "The bugging of a conversation between a lawyer and their client is usually something that should not be done but it does happen. In the year to March 2001 there were 2,565 authorisations for intrusive surveillance, including 239 in houses, 44 in offices, 77 in hotel bedrooms and four involving matters subject to legal privilege.

by Richard Ford & Frances Gibb, The Times

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

Prisoners FightBack:

Inmate Sues for Violence at HMP Long Lartin

In November 2001 at Manchester County Court ex-prisoner Billy Whitfield brought a civil claim for damages against the Prison Service on the grounds that staff 'supervising' the HMP Long Lartin segregation unit had repeatedly beaten him up.

On the first morning of the hearing the judge pointed out to the counsel for the Prison Service that 'procedural irregularities' in Whitfield's treatment tended to establish the culpability of prison staff, and maybe it would therefore be advisable to come to a financial settlement and avoid a full and costly court hearing. The Prison Service refused.

Billy' Whitfield described being attacked by staff on two consecutive days during March 1997. Their wrath was apparently provoked on the first occasion by his request for a medically recommended diet, already prescribed by the prison doctor. He was physically assaulted by about five screws, placed in 'locks' and dragged to a sensory deprivation special cell where he was beaten again and left for 24 hours. During that time, he was neither fed nor given water; nor was he checked by medical staff, nor charged with any disciplinary offence. These were the 'procedural irregularities' referred to by the judge.

The next day he decided to write to a solicitor about what had happened. He requested the use of a biro from his assailants of the previous day. He was promptly attacked again. Other prisoners objected by hammering on their cell doors; a few refused to slop out or clean their cells in protest, and one complained directly to a member of the Board of Visitors (BOV).

As a result of his treatment, Billy Whitfield was psychologically traumatised and suffered irreparable physical injury. The Prison Service's attempt to defend the screws' actions was dismissed by the judge, who then awarded Whitfield 21,000 pounds damages. All of the screws involved continue to work at HMP Long Lartin and none has been disciplined. The Prison Service has now lodged an appeal against the decision.

John Bowden, HMP Bristol

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

Fightback at Full Sutton

Following prison protests at HMP Full Sutton in late 2001, Fight Racism Fight Imperialism (FRFI) asked prisoners to send us their accounts or comments on what happened.

  Matthew Fitches: I was one of the ringleaders ghosted for organising the protest on my wing, E,wing. It was peaceful and intended to stop them from constantly cancelling exercise and gym. Eighty of us refused to bang up; only eight or so dissented. Seeing as Full Sutton is an A-category dispersal prison, we at least expect to have exercise and gym on a regular basis.

No notice was taken of the first protest. A second one occurred a few days later. This time roughly 150 prisoners off E, A and F wings refused to lock up. The result was that about 20 Of us were ghosted out, many to blocks (seg units) around the country. Worse was in store for the ones who went to Long Lartin where ill-treatment occurs on a regular basis. I and another good fella went to Wakefield block for a month and were then ghosted to Parkhurst

    John Shelley: The sit-down protests at HMP Full Sutton were a direct result of poor management. Too many changes in too short a space of time, together with an unwillingness to hear the needs of its prisoners are the two main contributing factors which led to a large number of inmates making a stand.

Having arrived at HMP Full Sutton myself in March 2001 it was immediately clear there was a great deal of animosity between management and prisoners. Even then there was a small number of prisoners who spoke out against the rapidly deteriorating conditions. But this was swiftly met with the outspoken inmate being removed from the wing and subsequently transferred out of the prison.

The problems at Full Sutton largely stemmed from the prison being split in two: half the prison being main wing prisoners, whilst the other half is devoted to 'Vulnerable Prisoners' (VPs). Main wing prisoners were left with a bad taste in their mouths when early in 2001 the running of the kitchens was for no apparent reason handed-over The VPs. it didn't stop there. It then transpired that the VPs would enter the visiting room for visits before main wing prisoners, gaining an advantage of around 30 minutes. Main wing prisoners suggested a rota system; management spent months before eventually agreeing, but once again it was to be in the VPs' favour. They would go first onto their visits five days a week, compared to our two - some balance!

More was to come... In May the working week was cut in half, as was the pittance they had the affront to call a wage. Again, this was to give the VPs a chance to work in some of the workshops they had previously been denied. Once more, not satisfied with sharing it evenly, management decided to allocate main wing prisoners the half of the week which just happened to coincide with POA meetings, wing meetings and wing callups, further reducing our earning capacity to less than half what it used to be. To add insult to injury, we were then expected to attend education for the other half of the week, or lose whatever job we had. The problems were never-ending.

The governors' attitudes were to implement changes as quickly as possible, with little regard as to how they would affect the people involved. The show of solidarity by the main wing prisoners at Full Sutton momentarily took control away from the authorities.

Source: Fight Racism Fight Imperialism (FRFI)

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

Too late, Too late, John Brannan,

'hostage of the state’ 1992 to his death in December 1998', cleared of murder.

"It is noteworthy that a critical factor in the court's judgment was the failure by the crown to disclose material that would have undermined its case or supported that of the defence. "After every miscarriage of justice, it is said that such miscarriages could not occur today because of the safeguards in place. Rules regarding disclosure are now more favourable to the crown than those in force at the time of this trial in 1992." Campbell Malone

Jail suicide victim is cleared of murder

A man who committed suicide in prison while serving a life sentence for murder was posthumously cleared yesterday by three judges sitting at the Court of Appeal.

John Brannan took his life at Blundeston prison, Suffolk, three years ago, six years after being convicted of stabbing a man to death in a nightclub. Mr Brannan's co-accused, Bernard Murphy was freed from prison yesterday after the convictions were judged unsafe..

After being released at the Royal Courts of Justice in London Mr Murphy said: "I am just sorry that my friend John Brannan isn't here with me to hear his name cleared."

Mr Murphy and Mr Brannan were convicted of killing Michael Pollitt, who died from a single knife wound to the stomach at the Express nightclub in Manchester on 24 June 1991. Their cases were referred back to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, an independent body with the power to investigate possible miscarriages of justice.

Murphy and Brannan, challenged their convictions in 1993 but were unsuccessful.

At trial, the Crown's case was that Brannan struck the fatal blow and was acting jointly with Mr Murphy, who was armed with an axe and uttering threats against Mr Pollitt's life.

Lawyers submitted during the appeal that fresh evidence showed Mr Pollitt had a gun or might have had a gun at the time of his death, giving rise to a justification of self-defence.

Giving judgment, Lord Justice Keene said the first ground of appeal put forward on behalf of both appellants was that in the light of fresh evidence there was a real possibility that the jury would have concluded that Mr Pollitt had or might have had a gun.

The second was the Crown failed to disclose at trial material that was relevant to the defence. This consisted of four police documents on or before 1 July 1991 recording information received that Pollitt had had a gun. It was clear to the court, he said, that by the time the jury retired to consider its verdicts "a great deal of emphasis was being placed on the apparent fact that the first mention of Pollitt having had a gun had come eight days or so after the killing". Lord Justice Keene added: "Yet the undisclosed material reveals that from as early as June 26 1991, two days after the incident, the police had been receiving information from various sources to the effect that Pollitt had had a gun." Even under the disclosure rules at that time, these matters should have been disclosed, the judge said.

He ruled: "Because of the way in which the issue of the gun became of central importance when the charges were left to the jury, we have concluded that the totality of the evidence now available on that topic, if given at trial, might reasonably have affected the decision of the jury to convict these two men.

"In those circumstances these convictions must be regarded as unsafe and therefore both appeals are allowed."

By Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspondent, The Independent, 26 January 2002

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

Sister Sarah should need no introduction as just about every Irish prisoner up and down the country knew her and were thankful for the support she showed not only the prisoners but also their families. It is a great lost to the Irish community, and in particular those who were on the receiving end of the criminal justice system here in the United Kingdom.

The Birmingham Six, The Guildford Four, both republican prisoners and none political prisoners all were on the receiving end of Sister Sarah's generosity and never faltering support.

If a family arrived from Ireland Sister Sarah was there to pick them up from the Airport or Dockside. It was Sister Sarah who found them accommodation and finally escorted them to the Prisons. Nothing could stand in the way of families visiting loved ones if Sister Sarah was with them. We are talking about visits were prisoners were dragged out of the visitors room during a visit by family from Ireland, and being Ghosted to another prison hundreds of miles away straight on to the punishment block, for reason at all, and no details given to the families.

Sister Sarah was the thorn in the side of every prison Governor in the country. She was Persona Non Grata in all the Category A prisons simply because she refused to bow down to the terrible regimes that were run within the Prison system in the 1970's and 1980's, and fought for prisoners right during that period. The authorities hated Sister Sarah, for her tremendous work for prisoner's right.

Billy Power Birmingham Six

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

A simple course of Penicillin would have stopped Martin Ward, dying in HMP Woodhill

The Inquest into the Death of Martin Ward a 23year old Irish man, while on remand at Woodhill Prison, ended today with a verdict of death by natural causes contributed to by neglect. Martin Ward Died on the 19th February 2001.The inquest allowed us a little glimpse into the Woodhill Prison and believe me, that was enough. Martin Ward was not even allowed the right to see a doctor. This was after an Agency nurse Mr Jhal visited Martin and was witness to Martin coughing up blood, he hadn’t eaten for several days, was hyperventilating and suffering from acute stomach pains.

HMP Woodhill Prison Service, is responsible for Martin Wards death. As a result of their neglect of duty to care for Martin Ward, he died in his cell alone, and distressed.

We would not allow this to happen to a dog, and yet when a police dog handler was responsible for the death of a police dog there is a court case and a Police Officer is convicted. Clearly the life of a young Irish man is worth less than that of a dog.

An inquiry carried out in 1998 into the conditions at Woodhill prison was a damming report, with a catalogue of the most horrendous conditions for prisoners. Nothing has changed, and even less has been learned.We call for an Independent Public Inquiry into the death of Martin Ward and urge you to support us in whatever way you can.

Terry Stewart on behalf of: Irish Deaths In Custody Campaign, P.O Box 29644, London E2 8TS