So ruled the High Court on Thursday 22nd February 2002. Lord Justice Simon Brown said, "It was beyond doubt that MI6 arranged for the kidnapping and deportation of Nicholas Mullen from Zimbabwe." This said the judge, was a "blatant and extremely serious failure to adhere to the rule of law" by those responsible for bringing him to court." . . . .and "were also acting in breach of public international law." . . . ."that there had been an abuse of process in bringing Mullen to trial."

Nicholas Mullen freed from a 30-year prison sentence after it emerged that he had been illegally deported from Zimbabwe back to the UK, at the request of MI6 was refused compensation in the High Court for the 10 years he spent in custody.

Nicholas, was cleared by the Court of Appeal 3 years ago because of a "blatant and extremely serious failure to adhere to the rule of law" by those responsible for bringing him to court.

Lord Justice Simon Brown said Mullen's "conviction had been secured at too high a price, but by no means does it follow that the claimant should also be financially compensated for the loss of his liberty".

The judge, upholding a decision by the Home Secretary, to refuse him compensation, said Mullen was "not entitled to be treated for all the world as if he was entirely innocent".

Under the Criminal Justice Act 1998, the Home Secretary must normally pay compensation to someone who has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Lord Justice Simon Brown said that there had been an abuse of process in bringing Mullen to trial. "But that fact did not itself show beyond reasonable doubt that there had been a miscarriage of justice."

Mullen, of Highbury, north London, was refused leave to appeal. Asked to comment on the ruling, he said: "You wouldn't be able to print what I wish to say."

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

MOJUK comment, many of the miscarriages of justice supported by MOJUK are 'career criminals' who have been *'taken off the streets' by the police.

MOJUK is not concerned with the 'innocence or guilt'  of those in jail. We are concerned only that they have been brought to trial and convicted through 'due process of law'.

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

My name is Frank Wilkinson and I was convicted of murder in January 1987, a murder which I had neither knowledge of or involvement in. My appeal was refused by Lord Lane (whose strange decisions have since been discredited) in January 1988. A few months later another man made a signed statement in which he admitted committing the murder, how, where, when and why, and stating that I had nothing to do with it. I am still in prison and various Home Secretaries have refused to send the case back to the appeal courts.

I have protested my innocence every day of the last 16 years, and the response of the Prison Service was to turn violent towards me. In the eight years from 1986 (my arrest) to 1994, I was moved from prison to prison, segregation to segregation, special unit to special unit, in excess of 40 times. I was beaten up on a regular basis, suffering physical damage. Police were called in to see my injuries and the Commission for the Prevention of Torture visited me in Wandsworth. When they saw me I could not speak; I had been knocked unconscious the day before and my throat was damaged. My answer to the commission’s questions were written down. A short while after that I was moved to Parkhurst, where I was beaten again on reception. In Parkhurst at one stage, I was naked, chained hand and foot, while a kind prison warder urinated on me.

Through all of this abuse, eight years of it,I refused to admit to a crime I had not committed.

In 1994 I was moved to Frankland prison where I started an education process. I gained a BA in Fine Arts, which I later upgraded to an MA. I also earned a First in English Language and Literature. I still maintained my innocence, but because of the involvement of Vicky King [then at the Prisoners Advice Service] monitoring my case and taking my treatment up with the Prison Service, the violence had ceased. From 1994 to 1999 I did not spend a day in the seg unit and was in Frankland all that time.

I still maintained my innocence.

In 1999 I was moved to Long Lartin prison and now I am in Full Sutton. Since 1994 I have written 21 novels, half of which are in the hands of a publisher.

For some reason, after 16 years in prison and great strides forward in education and achievement, the prison here had decided that I must be a ‘Basic regime’ prisoner and I must admit my guilt. This I refuse to do.

Since I have been made High Risk Cat A,I have effectively been stopped from further writing and I have not had a visit for over two years. I have only been stopped from writing since I came to Full Sutton.

All of this despite the fact that the Prison Service, police and judiciary all know who committed the murder and that it wasn’t me. They want me to lie and say I did it. I will die before I do that.

I need someone to help me, really I do.

PS: It doesn’t matter what they do to me, they can’t stop me smiling.

Frank Wilkinson (R60852) HMP Full Sutton, Moor Lane, York YO4 1PS

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

'Innocent Eddie Gilfoyle' - Campaign Newsletter - February 2002

Fresh Hope For New Appeal

Eddie's solicitor Campbell Malone, has asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)to refer the case back to the court for a fresh appeal.

Mr Malone has argued that in the light of the recent House of Lords decision in the Pendleton Case, Eddies case must now be referred back by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal.

The importance of the Pendleton case cannot be underestimated.

Donald Pendleton was sent to jail 15 years ago for the murder of a Bradford newspaper seller. He has always maintained his innocence.

Pendleton's case was referred back to the Court of Appeal by the CCRC in 1999. But the Court of Appeal Judges stepped into the role of the jury and decided that despite the new evidence presented by Pendleton it would have made no difference to the jury's deliberations at the trial. He was sent back to prison.

In December 2001 the House of Lords quashed the conviction and Pendleton was released.

At the House of Lords the Pendleton case raised questions about the role of the judges at the Court of Appeal. The lawyers representing Pendleton asked the Lords to clarify the role of the Court of Appeal when faced with new evidence never heard by the trial jury.

The lawyers took the view that the judges at 'the Court' of Appeal must not substitute themselves for the jury by trying to guess what significance the jury may or may not have placed on new evidence presented at the Court of Appeal. Put simply, the judges at the Court of Appeal must not act as judge and jury.

At the House of Lords, Lord Bingham said,

   "The Court of Appeal strayed beyond its true function of review and made findings which were not open to it in all the circumstances. Indeed, it came perilously close to considering whether the appellant, in its judgement, was guilty."

Lord Bingham's judgement runs to several pages and made a number of clear points including,

'Trial by jury does not mean trial by jury in the first instance and trial by Judges of the Court of Appeal in the second.' The law has always been clear. The Court of Appeal must decide whether evidence not heard at the trial but presented at the Court of Appeal is admissible and credible. Once the court has decided that the evidence is admissible and credible then the court must either quash the conviction or order a retrial.

The role of the Appeal Court is to review the evidence. The judges must not deal with a case as if they were the jury. They must not try to guess what the jury would have made of any new evidence presented at the Court of Appeal.

Although the law has always" been clear on this point, the judges at the Court of Appeal have often decided that new evidence presented to them would have made no difference to the jury's deliberations and the jury's conclusion at the trial.

Time after time the judges at the Court of Appeal have strayed beyond their true function - as a court of review. They must not retry the case by adopting the role of the jury, but this is what they did in the Pendleton case and this is what they have done in so many other cases.

They strayed beyond their true function in Eddie's case.

The case against Eddie is completely different to the case that was put to the jury at the trial. Therefore the judges at the Court of Appeal should not have put themselves in the place of the trial jury by concluding that the jury would have 6till convicted if they had heard the new evidence.

Because the case is now so different to that which the jury heard, the judges should have either quashed the conviction or at the very least ordered a retrial. On a recent visit to the prison Eddie said,

"At my last appeal the new evidence proved that I could not have committed the alleged crime and the prosecution experts agreed. If the jury had heard this, I would never have been convicted. The Appeal Court Judge's broke the law in my case. If the judges would have followed the law I would now be free. "

We await the decision of the CCRC and in the meantime we will still press on with the application to the European Court. Eddie's lawyers have sent the House of Lords Judgement in the Pendleton case to the European Court.

We are hopeful that we can get the case back to the Court of Appeal either through the CCRC or Europe.

Appeal Court Issue

Despite the developments in the Pendleton Case and his busy schedule,

Campbell Malone remains committed to campaign for a change in the Appeal Court process. He recognises the importance of working with miscarriage of justice campaigns and individuals.

Firstly though he needs the support of his colleagues in the legal profession to provide a firm professional basis to take the issues forward. To this end he has met on a number of occasions with his professional colleagues. They last met in November and are due to meet again this month. The group of lawyers he has met with have decided to call themselves 'Criminal Appeal Lawyers Association.' He hopes not only to work with campaigns and individuals to push for change, but he also hopes that the group will provide a support base providing help and advice to victims of miscarriage of justice. Of course this all takes time as most lawyers are extremely busy but we do believe the outcome will be well worth waiting for.

Thanks for the Xmas cards

Eddie has asked us to pass on his warm thanks to all of you who sent him Christmas cards and all of you who took the time to write letters of support over the Christmas period.

Eddie constantly tells us that the main thing that keeps him strong is your cards and letters of support. He said that during the times when he is feeling at his lowest, he draws strength from reading over the kind words and sentiments sent from his supporters.

He tries desperately hard to reply to all of his mail but is only allowed to purchase a certain number of stamps, most of which he uses to send letters fighting his case. The prison will not allow postage stamps to be sent into the prison but will allow stamped addressed envelopes.

Eddie said that some people forget to include their address so he is unable to respond.

He has become a prolific letter writer, which helps him pass the time. He asks that letters sent to him include a stamped addressed envelope. He feels so guilty when he is unable to respond to his mail for the sake of a stamp.

'Innocent Eddie Gilfoyle' DX 1827, HMP Wakefield, Love Lane, Wakefield, WF2 9AG

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

40,000 Prisoners last year were denied early release by prison governors

The Home Curfew Detention (HDC), which is meant to give short term offenders early release from prison is being openly abused by prison governors.

According to the Prison Service analysis, most prison governors are sceptical about the scheme, "Many see nothing in it for them except extra risk and extra work," it says. "As one of them put it: 'The present system is working fine for me: I've still got my job.'

Decisions on eligibility are taken by prison governors, who must make a risk assessment taking account of the prisoners likelihood of re-offending.

Since Jan 1999, a total of 43,000 inmates, eligible for Home Curfew HDC have been released and tagged. To qualify for tagging, prisoners must be on short-term sentences of between three months and four years and not have convictions for violence or sexual offences.

The failure rate for the scheme is less than five per cent, though only 2,000 have been recalled to prison, mostly for breaching the curfew rather than committing new crimes.

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

Leaked memo reveals scandal of jails refusing to release prisoners

Tens of thousands of prisoners eligible for early release from jail with electronic tags are being kept locked up because prison staff do not agree with the government scheme, leaked documents reveal.

A memo to the director general of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, reveals that out of 53,813 prisoners eligible for the home detention curfew scheme (HDC) only 13,571 (25 per cent) were allowed home last year. At some jails the percentage is less than 5 per cent.

The memo, written by a senior Prison Service official, says that "fewer prisoners have been released on HDC than anticipated. Further, statistics show that there has been a downward trend in the number of prisoners being released". It states that a "sizeable minority" of staff involved in running the scheme "objected in principle to early releases".

Some jails "have developed local policies which eliminate whole swaths of eligible prisoners". Inmates serving sentences for driving while disqualified were automatically refused on the grounds they would "immediately reoffend". Prisoners who failed drug tests in jail were deemed "bound" to take drugs if released.

The findings will worry the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, who is depending on the HDC programme to stop overcrowding running out of control. The jail population is at a record 68,500 and rising every month. Mr Blunkett said earlier this month he was extending the scheme's eligibility to cover prisoners with three months, as opposed to two, left of sentences.

But the leaked memo said HDC was regarded with "much scepticism" by governors and probation officers. It also reveals wide variation between prisons in use of the tagging scheme. At Dartmoor, where inmates were treated in conditions "more appropriate for dangerous animals" according to a report by the chief inspector of prisons, only 11 out of 264 eligible prisoners (4 per cent) were allowed home. At Parc prison, in south Wales, the figure was 16 out of 480 (3 per cent).

The Prison Service memo revealed that staff in charge of tagging programmes were terrified of mistakes. "There is genuine 'anxiety' about getting it wrong and the consequences which might follow, including bad local publicity," it noted. By Ian Burrell

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

Freedom & Justice for Samar & Jawad In association with al-Awda (UK)

Public meeting : "Human Rights and Anti-Terrorism

Wednesday 20 March 2002, Friends House 7.00pm, 173 -177 Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ

Speakers: Gareth Peirce -Samar & Jawad's solicitor, Mark Littlewood - Liberty, David Shayler- Whistleblower ex MI5 agent, Dr Ghada Karmi- Vice-chair CAABU, Suresh Grover - NCRM.

On 1/11/2001 Samar and Jawad lost their appeal against their wrongful conviction in relation to the 1994 bombing of the Israeli Embassy and Balfour House. They are innocent. Presumed guilty from the outset, they were deprived of vital evidence and never received fair or open hearings. The intelligence services and prosecution admitted to "human errors" and failures in disclosure. Far from fighting terrorism, the authorities are not looking for the actual bombers, and are letting two Palestinian scapegoats languish in prison. Who’s next?

Freedom & Justice for Samar & Jawad

BM Box FOSA London WC1N 3XX

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

Zahid Mubarek, murdered in HMP Feltham

At the appeal hearing heard at the Court of Appeal this week, the Home Secretary's lawyers admitted to the shocking circumstances and glaring mistakes that led directly to Zahid's racist murder by his cell mate in Feltham prison in March 2000. However they insisted that they had, since then, met all their obligations under Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. They argued that the need for a public inquiry was unnecessary given that all the relevant information was already in the public domain.

This was forcefully challenged by family lawyers who argued that no proper and through public investigation had yet taken place and that despite the existence of a number of internal inquiries there were still serious concerns held by the public and the family. The family lawyers exposed serious shortcomings of an internal "Butt Report". For instance, the author of the internal report had failed to interview a) named prison officers who were probably responsible for the shortcomings and errors, and b) named officers approached by Zahid to request change of cell. As yet no date has been set for the Judges decision although they have indicated that it would be soon. Whatever the outcome, the decision is likely to have a profound impact on how deaths in custody are dealt with by the authorities.

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

Hostages: Frank Wilkinson, Carl Kanute Gowe, Eddie Hampton, Jimmy Ingram, Pippy Perry, Paul Lyons, John Taft, Robert Brown, Garry Mills,Tony Poole, Phil Taylor, James. Wright, Rana khalifa, Clare Barstow, Samar Alami, Jawad Botmeh, Marianne Keita, Tony Hyland, Mark Barnsley, Michael Singh, Timothy Caines, Satpal Ram, Eddie Gilfoyle, Zoora Shah, Ray Gilbert, Winston Silcott, Ronnie Easterbrook, Ian Thomas, Istiaq Ahmed, Susan May, Andy Pountley , Sion Jenkins