MOJUK: Newsletter ‘Inside Out’ No 45

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

Chequebook Journalism bad - Chequebook Crown Prosecutions Good!

The Government intends to bring in new legislation, 'that to pay or agree to pay witnesses should be a criminal offence.'

But this will only apply to the media and not to the police, who pay vast amounts every year to witnesses/informers.

"Payments create a real risk of encouraging witnesses to exaggerate their evidence in court so as to make it more newsworthy, or to withhold relevant evidence from the court in order to give newspapers exclusive coverage later on."

So said Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor. castigating the press over the Damilola trial, not a word about the money the Crown Prosecution Service, shovelled at the now discredited star witness.

Not a word about making it illegal for the police to offer lighter sentencing to persons facing criminal charges or illegal to pay police informers to make statements.

No mention of the many miscarriages of justice created by Chequebook Crown Prosecutions.

Payments or offers of lighter sentencing, do encourage witnesses to exaggerate their evidence in court so as to make it more jailworthy

Stephen Windsor, who has done a fair amount of time and is now out, has been following the Damilola trial, said: "no evidence from a serving prisoner should be accepted by any Court, such evidence should not even be allowed."

"What the jury never finds out is whether or not the grass has a grudge, is having charges dropped, a sentence cut, or is being well paid."

"at the High Court, in the Damilola trial, two screws gave evidence that they heard the accused say they killed the Damilola boy. Bollocks I say. These boys refused to answer the questions put to them by the police so why would they then lose their wits and confess to a couple of screws? "

"The prosecution in this trial seem to not have a case so how convenient that they have these two screws."

"If these boys did kill Damilola then they should get convicted for the crime but not on such evidence that conveniently falls out of the sky.

""At the end of the day the police could not detect the end of their noses that is why informants are paid."

MOJUK, is of the opinion that when this legislation comes before parliament, there should be a campaign to make it illegal for the police to offer any potential witness any sort of inducement, wether it is in ‘cash or in kind.’ to take the stand.

They saunter about in all this megalomanical splendour

A few weeks ago on radio 4 news, there was an interview with a policeman,he was complaining to the country at large that the police were finding it very difficult to gain convictions in the courts. It obviously had not occur to him, one of the reasons could be that the wrong person had been arrested and the evidence did not fit, even after they had tampered with it.

In the 'Good old days', this would not have been so much of a problem because the police simply battered a confession our of the arrested person. The courts accepted this as perfectly normal practice, of course, and this sort of behaviour went on with impunity. Accusations of police brutality were largely ignored. Things have improved recently, in that they are doing it less, but not by much and not enough to say that it has stopped, won't happen again, or that any use of wrongful force by the police will be punished.

Then, this fine guardian of the law, (as fine a man who ever lied to a jury, as do his counterparts, who everyday in every court in the land, put their hand upon the bible and swear to tell the truth and then without pausing for breath, proceed to lie their hearts out) went on to complain that prison sentences were not tough enough. The fact that the day before some poor fucker was sentenced to twenty eight life sentences had completely passed him by. And sentences don't come any tougher than this no matter what the crime. (One life sentence would have been enough as no matter how hard the prison service try, they can only make him serve one of these sentences).

Then, this excellent figure of public esteem, said that gun-related crimes were rising and this is forcing the wonderful 'British bobby' to go about armed, much against their will. Of course. It obviously had not occurred to this fool that the very fact that the police are going about the place armed to teeth is the very reason that people are going about armed too!

The public’s perception of our wonderful police force, (the envy of the civilised world) is of a police force, benignly strolling around the streets completely unarmed and defenceless.

Bollocks! the truth is that the police force are strutting the streets, dressed in paramilitary style clothing, wearing bullet proof vests, trousers tapered and tucked into highly polished, calf high boots, equipment belts around their waists containing radios, handcuffs, mace, ammunition and carrying automatic weapons slung across their chests. They saunter about in all this megalomanical splendour. But look closely at their faces. and you will see they're 'looking for some poor bastard to upset or annoy them so that they can open fire.

Consequently, some people are carrying weapons themselves, because if this murderous police force are going to start shooting, some people are going to fucking-well shoot back.

There have been dozens of recent cases where the police have slaughtered innocent people on the streets and even in their own homes.

Have any of these killers, spent one single fucking minute in a cell, been charged with murder, GBH, assault, been sacked? (answers on the back of a postage stamp).

Is it likely that anyone of them are going to be sent to jail to join us who shouldn't be here, not fucking likely. Well to be fair, you can't start sending the police force to jail, there isn't any room for them. Though there would be if the government were to release all those wrongfully imprisoned and there are estimated to be over 5,000 people in prison who should not.

Lastly this arsehole wanted more power for the police! At present they have the power of life and death over the rest of us, they can even have us kidnapped, how much more power do these sad. sick, fucks want? Frank Wilkinson (R60852) HMP Full Sutton

Report back from United Families and Friends Campaign Meeting with the AG

United Families and Friends Campaign members whose loved ones died in custody met the Attorney General for a meeting to discuss future changes to the policy and procedure for prosecution, by the Crown Prosecution Service. The C.P.S attended the meeting.

The families were informed by the Attorney General that he would not be looking at any of the individual deaths in custody, which they raised, and that he was not in a position to reopen those cases. For him the meeting was to give the families the opportunity to speak about their experiences of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) and the way in which they had been treated over the years. This Lord Goldsmith said would be a positive input by the families, and would help shape future changes in prosecution procedure. Hopefully other families and individuals would not be put through the same situation that they had gone through.

Clearly from the outset of the meeting the families were there for a completely different reason. They are unanimous in their demand for an Independent Public Inquiry into Deaths in custody, along with other changes in the law that would enable them to have Justice. The families are not prepared to rest until they have had Justice for their loved ones.

Lord Goldsmith having seen the film Injustice, which the Police Federation tried to have banned, was clearly moved by the film. Unfortunately he seems to be of the opinion that the odd change in the law or policy here and there will put things right. The family members made it quite clear to L. G. that there experience of the CJS told them that the survival of the Status Quo was more important than Justice, and for that reason they could not see prosecutions taking place. They no faith in the system to prosecute Police and Prison Officers, and felt the whole CJS was loaded against ordinary people.

L.G talked about the problem of evidence not being available to prosecute the Officers and the great difficulty facing the C.P.S. It was pointed out to L. G. that there were thousands of individuals that have gone to Goal on no evidence what so ever, yet where there has been clear concrete evidence the C.P.S refused to allow a Judge and Jury the right to try these officers.

Pauline Ashley sister of Jimmy Ashley shot dead by police in Hasting three years ago, pointed out that even when her family got to the Old Bailey for the trial of five Officers for the death of her brother, it turn into a complete farce and all five Officers walk away with no convictions what so ever. How can this be asked Pauline?

This seemed to be the main problem. The families were the ones who had felt the Injustice yet no one really wants to listen to what they have experienced. Clearly the families feel that it is not the case of the Police alone, or the C.P.S alone, nor is it the case of the Courts alone. The whole Criminal Justice System needs to be changed root and branch.

If L.G. is serious about not allowing other families to experience the horrors, which the families told him about, then he must do only one thing. Call an Independent Public Inquiry into ‘Deaths in Custody.’ He will then get to the truth, of how these people died, and perhaps the total lack of faith that people have in the CJS may be restored. He will certainly be a lot more informed on what changes need to be made in order that the CJS is a reflection of Justice, and not a system of one law for the Police and Prison Officers and another law for the rest of us. I am afraid that is the reality for the families who have lost loved ones, in deaths in custody, and Lord Goldsmith should have the same strength and dignity that the families have and call for that Independent Public Inquiry. Our whole community deserves nothing less than the truth. Terry Stewart, Deaths In Custody Campaign

Robert Brown, HMP Haverigg, in the news again

"I have No Voice from Within these Prison Walls"

Robert Brown 895-839
HMP Haverigg
Millom
Cumbria
LA18 4NA

In Denial Of Murder (IDOM)

Robert Brown: It took five policemen 30 hours to break him down. The 19-year-old was threatened, intimidated and mocked, refused access to a lawyer, made to strip and shown a pair of unfamiliar, blood-soaked jeans which he was told proved his guilt.

The trial at Manchester Crown Court was, by all accounts, a farce, but the judge told the jury that to find in Brown's favour would be to accuse six policemen of lying.

'This was before any of today's high-profile cases of police corruption,' said O'Neil. 'In 1977, it was incomprehensible that a policeman would lie on oath.'

'For the Parole Board, being IDOM is the worst-ever category. It's a staggering injustice,' said Don Hale, the human rights campaigner whose battle against the authorities secured Downing's release. 'Prisoners with that label are considered more dangerous than someone who is genuinely guilty of murder.'

'The Court of Appeal has an almost inbuilt bias in keeping people in prison,' said John McDonnell MP

The CCRC was established in 1997 . . . . . . There is a widespread feeling, however, that it is thwarted by the Court of Appeal: of the 150 cases the CCRC has referred back to the Court of Appeal in the past five years, Foster estimates just over half have been heard, one third of which have been rejected.

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

25 years in jail for denying that he's a killer

Robert Brown won't get parole - because he maintains his innocence of murder

Amelia Hill, The Observer, Sunday March 3, 2002

Margaret Brown is dying. Last week, allowed to see her for the first time in months, her son silently gazed at her shrunken form on the bed and moved forward. Then he stopped.

Turning to a policeman standing behind him, he asked the officer to move around the bed and raise his arm incongruously in the air: the steel chain attached to his handcuff was making it impossible for him to hug his mother.

Everybody laughed when the 'wanted' posters went up around Manchester's Bullring estate. It was January 1977 and it looked, Robert Brown said at the time, as if the police were searching for Rod Stewart.

Then he forgot about it and went back to his day-to-day life. The murder of 51-year-old Annie Walsh, battered to death in her home for no apparent reason, had horrified the neighbourhood but after four months and no police leads, people began to forget.

Until, that is, the May morning when the police beat down Brown's front door, hauled him out of bed, slapped his girlfriend and drove them both down to the police station.

It took five policemen 30 hours to break him down. The 19-year-old was threatened, intimidated and mocked, refused access to a lawyer, made to strip and shown a pair of unfamiliar, blood-soaked jeans which he was told proved his guilt.

'We all have a breaking point,' said Eamonn O'Neil, a campaigning television journalist who has been fighting for Brown's release for 11 years. 'By the end, he would have signed anything, which is exactly what he ended up doing.'

The trial at Manchester Crown Court was, by all accounts, a farce, but the judge told the jury that to find in Brown's favour would be to accuse six policemen of lying. 'This was before any of today's high-profile cases of police corruption,' said O'Neil. 'In 1977, it was incomprehensible that a policeman would lie on oath.'

The jury found Brown guilty and the judge sent him down for a minimum of 15 years. A quarter of a century later, however, Brown is still in jail. Now that Stephen Downing, imprisoned for 28 years for a murder he did not commit, has been released, Brown is the victim of Britain's longest-running alleged miscarriage of justice.

Brown, like Downing, has been classified by the Home Office as being IDOM, in denial of murder, and not even the impressive list of prison governors, guards and psychiatrists supporting his claims of innocence can win him parole.

'For the Parole Board, being IDOM is the worst-ever category. It's a staggering injustice,' said Don Hale, the human rights campaigner whose battle against the authorities secured Downing's release. 'Prisoners with that label are considered more dangerous than someone who is genuinely guilty of murder.'

Hale's book about his battle is the basis for the forthcoming BBC film In Denial Of Murder . 'When I contacted the Home Office about Stephen's case, their attitude was that he would be treated literally as scum and his file would stay at the bottom of the pile until he admitted his guilt,' he said. 'The whole thing was completely horrendous; by the end, the prison authorities were practically pleading with him to say he was guilty because they knew there was no way he was going to be let out as long as he kept maintaining his innocence.'

Downing's case hit the headlines but Hale, who receives hundreds of letters a month from prisoners insisting they too have been unjustly imprisoned, is adamant that Downing's case is far from unusual.

'There's a feeling that Stephen's case is exceptional; that he was innocent but most are not,' said Hale. 'That's patently untrue: we've seen a stream of innocent men released from jail over the last few years but the Home Office still refuses to admit the system gets it wrong.'

O'Neil agrees. 'Robert's is a lonely case but a distressingly typical one,' he said. 'It's a nightmare the rest of us simply can't imagine.'

After their initial appeal has been turned down, there are two ways lifers can get a sentence revoked: by the Parole Board and the Court of Appeal, via the CCRC.

Brown, who is waiting to see whether the commission refers his case back to the Court of Appeal, is keeping his hopes in check: prisoners, (continued on back page) (continued from front page) . . . . .campaigners, independent experts and even members of the boards all admit the system is not only loaded against those who refuse to accept guilt but that it punishes those who continue to insist on their innocence.

Between April and July last year, 22 per cent of those who maintained their innocence were granted parole compared with 46 per cent of all prisoners.

Jo Dobry, a member of the Parole Board, is adamant that there is no prejudice towards IDOMs. 'Those who claim to be innocent possibly do make life more difficult for us and it's true that we take as fact that prisoners have been rightly convicted,' she conceded. 'But the myth that we have a policy of not recommending the release of murderers who maintain their innocence is completely wrong.'

Kevin McNamara MP, a member of Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights, disagrees. 'The Parole Board may claim they do not penalise prisoners for insisting on their innocence but I believe that claim is disingenuous in the extreme,' he said. 'The IDOMs I meet repeatedly tell me of the pressure they are put under to admit guilt in order to progress through prison as quickly as possible.'

Those who resist, he says, suffer abuse and discrimination. 'The treatment received by those who refuse to give in needs to be looked at by the Home Affairs Committee or by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.'

His call is echoed by members of the Criminal Cases Review Commission itself. 'Whether the Parole Board claims it is the case or not, we have seen documents proving that people do see a conflict between getting parole and maintaining their protestations of innocence,' said Tony Foster, a member of the commission and former chief executive of ICI. 'There is no question that this is a state of affairs that is absolutely wrong.'

The CCRC was established in 1997 in the wake of the Birmingham Six case. While undeniably slow and despite arguments over the cases it chooses to consider - taking up cases where the prisoners have died, for example, before those where the claimants are still alive - most feel the commission is relatively efficient.

There is a widespread feeling, however, that it is thwarted by the Court of Appeal: of the 150 cases the CCRC has referred back to the Court of Appeal in the past five years, Foster estimates just over half have been heard, one third of which have been rejected.

'The Court of Appeal has an almost inbuilt bias in keeping people in prison,' said John McDonnell MP, a campaigner against miscarriages of justice. 'It's full of judges who are dyed-in-the-wool-types who err on the side of caution, demanding a standard of evidence that is almost impossibly high.'

For those like Brown, forced to choose between staying in prison while his mother fades away or admitting a heinous crime, the struggle can be overwhelming. As the police led him back to prison last week, he clutched a photo of the two of them together; the chain and handcuff still tugging on his wrist.