Justice for Kevin Samuel Cole

Convicted of murder on the "Fleeting Glimpse" identification evidence of one person alone.

Sam Cole is serving a life sentence for murder he was convicted in 1998 for the murder of John Dookie and the attempted murder of James Thomas Handyside. Sam Cole has always vigorously protested his innocence.

There is no forensic evidence to connect Sam to the murder there was no confession. Sam was convicted on the identification evidence of one person Mrs Ellis who saw a man chasing Handyside towards the Variety Public House in Preston. She describes that man as white, 5’ 10" to 5’ 11" wearing a striped top, which she describes in some detail and speaking with a local accent (Prestonian),

Sam is of mixed race he is 6’ 3", it was accepted by the prosecution that he was wearing a plain top on that day and he speaks with a distinct Liverpool accent. Mrs Ellis was later to pick Sam out in an identity parade when all the participants remained seated. Despite Sam taking part in a further eight identification parades none of those witnesses picked him out. including Handyside

Mrs Ellis was later to say in court that if Sam was 6’ 3" he could not have been the man chasing Handyside.

Sam was convicted along with two others, Stephen Mellor and Anthony Kirk. Mellor and Kirk are now admitting to the murder and Kirk has stated that he was the man chasing Handyside, in fact he admitted this to Police when he was arrested and before Sam Cole was arrested. Kirk fits the description given by Mrs Ellis right down to the striped top, Kirk was never put on an ID parade for Mrs Ellis to see.

Sam’s Mother Sue has protested her son’s innocence and came to Merseyside Against Injustice for help we have now found new evidence in the form of two witnesses one of whom says that he can alibi Sam. Things are looking better Sam now has the support of 28 MPs led by his own MP Louise Ellman and has started to receive some positive press coverage for his case.

Send messages of solidarity to Sam:

Sam Cole

HM3009

HMP Whitemoor

Longhill Road

Cambs PE15 0PR

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

The Case of Kevin Samuel Cole

On the 18th of February 1997 Kevin Samuel Cole – known to his family and friends as ‘Sam’ walked into a police station in Liverpool as a free man. It was his last day of freedom. The following year at Preston Crown Court he was convicted of murder. Sam remains in prison to this day. From the outset Sam protested his innocence but his protestations of innocence fell on deaf ears. Seemingly, the police and the authorities were hell bent on obtaining a conviction. They cobbled the evidence together, which was later to prove the downfall of Sam Cole. But Sam Cole is innocent and the evidence proves it.

At the time Sam was a young man of 20 years from Liverpool. He had no previous convictions for violence or drug related matters. On 14th February 1997, at about 6pm, the deceased, a man named Dookie and his friend Handyside (who was also badly assaulted) were walking along St Peters Street, Preston. It was Valentines Day. Dookie and Handyside were attacked by a large group of males and Dookie was fatally stabbed. The prosecution told the jury that there was an ongoing drug feud between Dookie and Handyside on the one part and two other men named Kirk and Mellor. Kirk and Mellor were arrested and are also serving life imprisonment for the murder of Dookie and the assault on Handyside. Witnesses say that between 8 and 20 others were involved in the attack, but other than Sam, no others were arrested in connection with the murder or the assault.

There was absolutely no evidence to suggest that Sam was involved in either in the supply of drugs to Kirk and Mellor or in business of drug supplying generally. There was no evidence that Sam was involved in the attack that led to the death of Dookie and remarkably, Handyside did not identify Sam as being responsible for either the attack on him or the attack on Dookie. The evidence presented to the court was that Kirk was the person responsible for inflicting the fatal wounds, which led to Dookie’s death.

Handyside ran from the scene nursing his wounds. He ran into the nearby Variety Public House and was being pursued by one of the gang. The prosecution told the jury that Sam was the person chasing Handyside and he therefore must have been involved in the attack.

· Sam was put on eight identification parades. Amongst others, Handyside, was unable to identify Sam but one witness named Linda Ellis picked Sam out as being the person chasing Handyside into the pub. Linda Ellis was on her way home from the shops when Handyside and her pursuer ran past. She caught a fleeting glimpse of the two men and heard the voice of the man chasing Handyside. The physical description given by Linda Ellis to the police of the man chasing Handyside does not match Sam.

· Linda Ellis said the man was 5’10" tall, wearing a striped top and had a local accent. Sam is 6’3" tall and has a strong Liverpool accent. At the time he was wearing a plain coloured top, which can be proven by a shop video, which recorded his picture only 20 minutes before the incident.

· Furthermore, when the police interviewed Kirk, they told him that from the evidence, they were convinced that he was the person that chased Handyside into the pub. Kirk agreed and it is therefore obvious that Linda Ellis made a dreadful mistake when she picked out Sam from the identification parade. Kirk is 5’11" and has a local accent and was wearing a striped top. Out of 122 witnesses that gave evidence at the trial, Linda Ellis is the only witness against Sam.

The only connection Sam had with Kirk was that Sam’s girlfriend was the sister of Kirks girlfriend. The prosecution at trial alleged that Kirk and Mellor had recruited Sam to take part in the attack. They said that phone calls were made between Kirk and Sam. But the phone calls were one way, from Sam to Kirk. Sam was trying to locate his girlfriend to make arrangements to go out that night (Valentines Day) and nothing more. Unable to locate his girlfriend by phone, Sam travelled to Preston from Liverpool. His girlfriend was out and after speaking to Kirk, Sam decided to return to Liverpool and left prior to the attack on Dookie and Handyside. Sam is adamant that he was not involved in the subsequent attack that led to Dookies death and the assault on Handyside. The time given for Sam arriving back in Liverpool is evidence that he could not have been involved. There are no witnesses, no DNA or forensic evidence to link Sam to the attack.

Sam never was and never has been involved in drugs or the supplying of drugs. He is not a violent man and has been caught up in something, which had nothing to do with him.

Family and friends of Sam are desperate for any information, which may help in proving Sam’s innocence. His mother Sue is beside herself with grief and worry. If you can help, in any way at all, then please contact:

Merseyside Against Injustice

PO Box 51

Upton, Merseyside, CH49 2WA

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

At long bloody last - Police charged over custody death

Police on manslaughter charges over death of prisoner

Five police officers, who allegedly stood by chatting while a prisoner choked to death, are to face charges of manslaughter through gross negligence.

The sergeant and four constables from the Humberside force are already due to go on trial next month accused of misconduct in a public office, but the more serious charge is now added to the indictment.

The five denied the misconduct charges last year at a preliminary hearing in Hull, where former paratrooper Christopher Alder, 37, died in the central Queen's Gardens police station in April 1998.

The new charges follow an application by the crown prosecution service to Teesside crown court, where the trial is expected to start on April 10.

After two days of legal argument, Mr Justice Roderick Evans agreed that charges of manslaughter by gross negligence should be made. He said he was satisfied that it would be in the public interest to test the more serious accusation.

The accused are custody sergeant John Dunn, 40, and constables Matthew Barr, 38, Neil Blakey, 42, Nigel Dawson, 39, and Mark Etherington, 36. All are from Hull and on bail.

Alder, who was a father of two, won a medal for service in Northern Ireland before he left the army to start a course in computer studies. A memorial for him, which was held this week in Hull to mark the fourth anniversary of his death, was addressed by his sister, Janet Alder.

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

Prisoners and the Right to Correspondence

Prisoners’ right to correspondence is preserved most clearly in relation to legal correspondence. Prisoners retain the right at common law and under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to have access to the courts in order to have their civil rights and obligations determined, and it is a contempt of court for anyone,including the prison authorities, to attempt to interfere with the exercise of that right ( ie by interfering with/intercepting letters attempting to initiate court proceedings- Raymond v Honey (1983) 1 All ER 756,HL.

Prisoners also retain the right to respect for their correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention. The Prison Rules and Standing Orders,which previously facilitated routine examination, reading and stopping of correspondence, have been liberalised to a degree following decisions of the European Court of Human Rights holding that the restrictions violated the right to respect for correspondence under Article 8 (1),were not in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, and went further than was justified by reference to any of the permissible justifying purposes for interference under Article 8 (2). ( see for instance McCallum v United Kingdom Eur.Ct.Hr Series A,No.183,Judgement of 30 August 1990 , Campbell v United Kingdom Eur.Ct.Hr Series A No 233,Judgement of 25 March 1992,15 EHRR 137.)

In Campbell the European Court of Human Rights decided that routine reading of a prisoner’s correspondence with his lawyer breached Article 8.The Home Office revised the Prison Rules as a result . Rule 39 now provides that a prisoner may correspond with his/her legal adviser and the court (including the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice) Prisoners must be provided with writing materials on request for the purpose of such correspondence. The governor can only open and examine such correspondence if there is reasonable cause to believe that it contains an illicit enclosure or there is reasonable cause to believe that its contents may endanger prison security,the safety of others,or is otherwise of a criminal nature.A prisoner whose legal correspondence is to be dealt with under these provisions has the right to be present when his /her legal mail is opened. As long as a letter is marked "Rule 39" and is identifiabley from a legal adviser-ie by a stamp on the back of the envelope-it should fall within the protection of Rule 39.Outgoing mail should be marked "Rule 39." Prisons are advised to check the status of advisers to see if they fall within the protection of Rule 39. The necessary element of "reasonable suspicion" would render routine opening of all mail on a blanket basis (as used to occur at Woodhill CSC) unlawful.

Provisions for non-legal correspondence are contained within Prison Rules 1999 r 34 and 35 . Rule 35 (2) (a) allows prisoners to send 1 letter a week at public expense. Prisoners can exchange visiting orders for letters at governor’s discretion. Standing Order 5B states that "The policy of the Prison Service is to encourage inmates to keep in touch with the outside world through regular letter writing,to respect the privacy of correspondence to and from inmates as far as possible and to ensure that it is transmitted as speedily as possible." 5B authorises prisoners to send as many privilege letters as they wish each week,paid for from their own funds (sending in saes to prisoners is not prohibited -and it is arguable that any such prohibition would breach Standing Order 5B and Article 8)

Special letters are issued-according to need-as follows-

1) when prisoners are about to be transferred,or on reception at a new establishment. The number of letters should correspond to the number of vos remaining. Special letters in the case of transfers should be sent at the public expense.

2)Immediately after conviction if the prisoner needs to settle business affairs

3)where necessary for the welfare of the prisoner and his/her family

4)in connection with legal proceedings to which prisoner is a party

5) to arrange contact with probation officer,employment agency etc

6) to write to the Prison Ombudsman or Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

7)at Christmas-at governor’s discretion.

Correspondence to and from prisoners must show the sender’s name and address.There is a general right to correspondence (preserved by Article 8) Restrictions are placed on the following classes of people:-

1) Correspondence to minors may be stopped if the person having parental responsibility makes such a request. (Prison Rules 34 para 21 (a)) A person with parental responsibility can request correspondence be stopped between a minor in custody and a correspondent. (Para 21(b))

2) the governor can prohibit correspondence between a minor in custody and any person whom it is thought it would not be in the minor’s interest to communicate with (para 22)

3) prisoners who are co-defendants writing re conviction or sentence can correspond,as can prisoners who are close relatives. In other cases ,the approval of both governors is necessary- but refusal must be within the justifying terms of Article 8.)

4) Correspondence with ex-prisoners is permitted unless it represents a threat to good order or security.

5) if a prisoner wishes to write to a victim of his/her offences,permission must be sought from the governor (unless victim has already written to prisoner) (para 25)

6) correspondence with any person or organisation can be stopped if the governor reasonably believes that the correspondent is engaged in activities which present a genuine and serious threat to the good order and security of the jail or the prison estate (para 26)

7) prisoners can advertise for penfriends-subject to governor’s approval (para 28)

Correspondence can be prohibited on grounds of its contents (para 34) as follows:-

1) material which is threatening or,indecent or grossly offensive or which is known to be false

2) plans or material relating to the commission of a criminal/disciplinary offence

3)escape plans or material which would threaten the security of the prison

4) material that would jeopardise national security

5) descriptions of the making or use of any weapon,explosive,poison etc

6)obscure or coded messages

7)indecent and obscene material (Post Office Act 1953)

8) material which if sent to,or received from, a child might put the child’s welfare at risk

9) material which would create a clear threat or present danger of violence or physical harm to any person,including incitement to racial hatred

10) material intended for publication /broadcast for payment and relates to prisoner’s conviction or criminal history ( unless it forms part of serious representations about conviction,sentence or the criminal justice system)

11) material relating to business activity other than power of attorney,winding up or sale of business following conviction etc

All Cat A prisoners,and others in maximum security prisons ,and all prisoners on the escape list are subject to routine reading.Other prisoners may be if there is reason to believe any of the restrictions on correspondence are being or are likely to be infringed . Paras 38-39 give governors the power to copy correspondence to other agencies to help in the recovery of proceeds of crime,or where public safety or national security is an issue- the agencies include Immigration Department,Customs and Excise ,MI5 and the Serious Fraud Office)

Legal correspondence is excluded .

Any queries for further information or clarification, write to:

Nick Moss, c/o MOJUK

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

Another Death in Custody

John Scholes, aged 16, found hanged at HMP Stoke Heath, young offenders' institution

A teenage inmate has been found hanging at a young offenders' institution which was last year described by the chief inspector of prisons as unsafe.

John Scholes, 16, was found in the health centre at Stoke Heath young offenders institution, near Market Drayton, Shropshire, on Sunday. He was hanging from the window of a cell by a ligature.

The teenager was taken by air ambulance to North Staffordshire royal infirmary, but medical staff were unable to revive him.

John Scholes was serving two years at Stoke Heath for robbery. His family are thought to live in Manchester.

The coroner has been informed and an inquest will be opened today. An investigation is also being carried out by the prison service.

A spokeswoman for the prison service said: "John Scholes was found hanging in the health care centre at 3.21pm on Sunday. Staff at tempted resuscitation and he was taken by air ambulance, but pronounced dead on arrival."

Last year, the then chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, described HMP Stoke Heath as unsafe. An inspection revealed that there were 717 acts of violence during an eight month period. Most of the incidents were assaults or fights.

Helen Carter, Tuesday March 26, 2002, The Guardian