And that deep torture may be called a hell, when more is felt than one hath power to tell

So it goes, another hostage has returned from the High Court, back to the prison from whence he came. No words can describe the suffering and torment of a ‘Hostage’ who has made it to the court of appeal, only to be knocked back. The return journey to HMP Ashwell, for Ian Thomas, must have been horrendous.

All who went to the Ian Thomas appeal, had high hopes that his long injustice would at last come to an end. But it was not to be, normal service has resumed in the High Court.

Messages of Solidarity to : Ian Thomas, HMP Ashwell, Rutland , LE15 7LF

There has been very very little joy the last year for cases that have been referred back to the court of appeal by the CCRC. and the next few pages of ‘Inside Out’, will tell you why.

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

Irish Deaths in Custody Campaign (IDICC) meets Solicitor General

IDICC had a meeting on the 3rd May, with Harriet Harman The Solicitor General to discuss the Deaths of Irish People in Custody in Britain and in particular the death of Five Irish Men in Brixton Prison.

IDICC informed the Solicitor General of the concern expressed within the Irish Community around these deaths, and requested an Independent Public Enquiry . The fact that the Irish Community are not having their Rights as an Ethnic Minority addressed, by the Authorities, has lead to a feeling within the Community of abandonment, and as a result leaves them in a very vulnerable position, around the whole question of Institutionalised Racism experienced by the Irish Community.  

The European Parliaments Convention on Human Rights, which has now become Law here in Britain, is not being used to protect the Irish Community. The very basic right, the right to life, has been ignored at the cost of Irish Lives, while in custody.

IDICC urged the Solicitor General to address these issues, if the Irish Community were to have their confidence in the Criminal Justice System restored. The IDICC agreed to be part of the Attorney General’s Review of the Crown Prosecutions Service, in relation to Deaths in custody, providing there is a full and open consultation, between the families, IDICC and the Attorney Generals Office. An emphasis was placed upon the argument that, deaths in custody are only the end product of a Criminal Justice System, which is fundamentally flawed.

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

Detectives face action over inquiry into man's death

Three detectives are to face disciplinary action over their investigation into how a man died shortly after being restrained by police. Roger Sylvester, 30, died eight days after an incident outside his home in Tottenham, north London, in January 1999.

A detective superintendent and two detective sergeants who were involved in the initial inquiry into Mr Sylvester's detention and subsequent death are now to face a total of seven disciplinary charges, the PCA said.

The charges come after complaints by Mr Sylvester's family about the conduct of officers from the Metropolitan police's complaints investigation bureau.

An inquest into Roger Sylvester, death is due to be held in October.

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

Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC ) - Is it worth the candle?

Disillusionment with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC ) increases by the day, this is not just the opinion of the many 'Hostages' still in prison, but also Bob Woffinden, an investigative journalist who specialises in miscarriages of justice.

Since its founding five years ago only 4 per cent of all its cases have been referred back to the court of appeal. And this low referral rate is a deliberate choice of the CCRC not to challenge the judicial system but to 'second guess' what the High Court will do. A practice much used by the High Court judges, in deciding what juries would think, and condemned by a great majority of leading criminal lawyers and barristers and ruled illegal by the House of Lords.

Though the first years of the CCRC have seen successes, (the percentage has hovered at between two thirds and three quarters) the past year has seen a rise in rejected appeals. Prompting concern argues Campbell Malone, that the pendulum in the appeal court has swung back and that convictions are sustained even in the face of compelling new evidence.

MOJUK has always maintained that you can't have the same judges who sent people to prison, hearing their appeals. Experience has shown time and time again that the main function of the Court of Appeal, is to uphold the decisions of previous courts.

Appeals should be heard by an independent court, a court which will not have the restraints of the present system, and it is high time this should be set up.

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

A system with questionable appeal - Times Law Reports, April 30, 2002

After a run of high-profile miscarriages of justice in the 1980s, new machinery was set up to tackle alleged wrongful convictions. Five years on, how well is the process working? Frances Gibb reports

As Sally Clark recently found to her cost, a verdict reached by the criminal justice system is almost set in stone. Rightly, it is not easy to overturn a "guilty" finding by the courts. But when a mistake has been made, does the appeal process provide an adequate safeguard against a wrongful conviction? Today Sir Frederick Crawford, the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), appears before the Commons Home Affairs Committee.

It is nearly five years since the commission was set up to take over from the Home Office C3 department the job of tackling alleged miscarriages of justice. Its creation was a landmark; public and statutory recognition that the system could get it wrong in the wake of cases such as the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four and a determination to create a body that would operate openly and efficiently.

The commission took a backlog of some 250 cases from the Home Office and Northern Ireland Office. A spokesman said: "There were historic cases such as Hanratty and Derek Bentley and others going back years . . . the files arrived in a pantechnicon." The caseload burgeoned and now the commission receives 800 a cases a year (the Home Office figure was about 700.) Its task is crucial. Bob Woffinden, an investigative journalist who specialises in miscarriages of justice, says: "It remains a near-impossibility to win a case on a first appeal (before the Court of Appeal) – so much so that people feel they must tread water until after that, and then get on the business of going to the CCRC."

To date it has received 4,830 applications, but few will survive through to the Court of Appeal. About a third are thrown out because the person has not been through the appeal process or has no fresh ground for argument. Most, as with the Home Office, are turned down. In all, 161 cases have been to the Court of Appeal in five years, 4 per cent of all cases. The Home Office referral rate was nearer 1.5 per cent.

The CCRC has come under fire for delays and dealing with "dead" cases while prisoners languish behind bars. In its defence, it says the backlog is down from 1,200 to 300 – and the average wait is 14 months for those in custody and 19 months for those at liberty or deceased. And it argues that cases such as Hanratty or Mahmood Mattan, a Cardiff man hanged for murder, justify attention. "These cases have blighted families’ lives – to have a person hanged for something they did not do . . . we’d be failing if we did not look at these cases. They are only a small percentage and there has to be a close relative involved."

But a referral to the Court of Appeal is only half the battle. The appeal judges themselves then decide if a conviction should be quashed or a case sent for retrial. The CCRC refers cases to the court if it thinks there is a "real possibility" of the appeal being allowed. So, argues Woffinden, the CCRC is in effect always second-guessing the Court of Appeal. "Even if it thinks there has been an injustice, but does not believe the appeal court will allow it, it won’t refer." In a sense, he says, the c. But the CCRC insists that people must have new evidence or legal points not heard at the original trial or appeal. The test may seem stiff, it says, but "we are not here to give everyone a second chance".

The Court of Appeal nonetheless does its own rigorous sifting. Of 161 cases sent so far, 95 have been heard. Two thirds have been quashed and the rest upheld. The percentage has hovered at between two thirds and three quarters, but the past year has seen a rise in rejected appeals, prompting concern, Woffinden says, that the court is taking a tougher line. Lawyers cite cases such as that of Stephen Craven, convicted of murdering a young girl after a fracas in a Newcastle nightclub. His appeal was rejected. Another case was that of Eddie Gilfoyle, convicted of the murder of his wife, Paula, on The Wirral. His lawyer, Campbell Malone, argues that the pendulum in the appeal court has swung back and that convictions are sustained even in the face of compelling new evidence.

What is happening, the lawyers say, is that the court is increasingly considering such evidence itself, in effect doing the job of the jury, then rejecting it. The new test the court now applies is whether a conviction is "unsafe", instead of the old "unsafe and unsatisfactory" or "material irregularity". This gives judges greater leeway to assess the totality of a case.

A recent House of Lords ruling made clear that the Court of Appeal must not put itself in the position of a jury on fresh evidence, Woffinden says. But while that is welcome, other concerns persist: lawyers detect a trend for the Crown, not just the defence, to put forward new evidence – in effect, mounting a fresh prosecution. John Batt, a solicitor friend of Sally Clark who is serving life for the murder of her babies, questions the court’s make-up. The judges appear to be chosen at random. Only one judge in Clark’s appeal was from the Family Division, he says.

But such judges have much greater experience of child abuse. If the appeals machinery is to work, lawyers say, the terms of the CCRC should be widened to refer all cases where there is a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice. The role of the appeal court should be clarified so it does not usurp that of the jury; and where there is cogent new evidence, convictions are quashed outright or sent for a retrial. In that way, juries, not judges, can decide if the system got it wrong.

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

Justice For Mark Barnsley - Campaign Bulletin - May 2002

After 8 Years Of Imprisonment - The CCRC Begin to Look at Marks Case.

Shortly after the publication of our last bulletin Mark learned that the Criminal Cases Review Commission are finally due to begin investigating his case. His application was made 2 and a half years ago, and the CCRC’s investigation is likely to take at least a year.

Mark is thought to have a strong application, and we hope that the CCRC will be able to turn up further new evidence, and that they will refer Marks case to the appeal court.

If the case is referred though, it is likely to be at least another year before it is heard, and the appeal court certainly do not have a good track record in terms of miscarriages of justice. Some appellants have had to go before them several times.

The injustice of Marks case will be further compounded by the fact that by the time any decision is taken he will have already served the vicious 12 year sentence imposed on him by a corrupt and biased judge. We must never let what’s happened to Mark be forgotten. Justice is already long overdue.

Mark has issued the following statement:

I am very pleased that the CCRC have begun their investigation into my case, and hope that this will finally pave the way for a successful appeal against my wrongful conviction. While I remain optimistic, the fact that I have already spent nearly 8 years in prison, and that if my appeal is eventually successful it is unlikely to come for another 2 years or more, is hardly grounds for believing British Justice exists. Whatever happens in the future, the sad fact is that I will have spent many long years in prison, falsely accused and wrongly convicted. Any semblance of justice can only come when my wrongful conviction is overturned, and those responsible for my nightmare are belatedly held to account.

Mark Barnsley - Whitemoor Prison - March 2002

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

Returning To Planet Earth - From the Cage to the Safari Park

Dear friends,

Under British law a 12 year prison sentence is made up as follows: After 6 years a prisoner is eligible for release on parole. If parole is not granted, or in my case applied for, the prisoner will be automatically released after 8 years (plus any extra days that are added for punishment, for refusing to do prison work for example, or for refusing to share a cell.) Until the early 1990s that was it, the prisoners sentence was officially over, but that is not the case anymore. Now, after his or her release, a prisoner is on licence, in the case of a 12 year sentence for 12 months, during that period they can be returned to prison at any time. Then for the next 3 years there is an at risk period, if the ex-prisoner is convicted of a criminal offence during this time they can be made to serve the whole of their previous sentence, plus whatever punishment is imposed. In the case of someone who has been convicted of an ostensibly violent offence, they have a life sentence hanging over them for the rest of their lives.

Despite my experiences of the British injustice system, I had always thought that I would be freed from prison through the appeal court, not simply thrown out on the streets after over 8 years, with a train ticket and a weeks dole money, and my wrongful conviction still intact. For me it is a terrible thing, one I haven’t even been able to bear thinking about.

Having rejected the parole procedure on principle, I thoroughly resent the idea of being released on licence. The conditions vary enormously, but they can be extremely draconian, subjecting ex-prisoners to virtual House-arrest, and so extending their sentences. These licences are also being used as a way of targeting people for further fit-ups, and they can be hauled in at any time without even being accused of any offence.

I will not be signing the licence, so I don’t know for certain what will happen when the time for my release comes. As I understand it, it is almost certain that I will be initially released, and that if necessary I will be forcibly evicted. After that it is unclear what will happen, but I can expect all my actions and movements to be closely monitored, scrutinised, and controlled. I will still be a prisoner, albeit one with a longer chain, and I could find myself rapidly re-imprisoned. The uncertainty of what will happen is extremely stressful for me and my family. I don’t know for definite if I will be released, and for how long. I don’t know if and when some probation-cop will decide I'm mixing with the wrong people, or going to the wrong demonstrations, or frequenting the wrong places, and order the police to kick in my door, or the door of whoevers house I'm staying at, and drag me back to prison.

As things currently stand I am due to be released on July 5th 2002, but if a pending legal action is successful (challenging a previous punishment) I could be released on June 21st.

In the early days of my imprisonment I read about a famous miscarriage of justice case, the Luton Post Office murder case, which in many ways has haunted me ever since. Two men Michael Mahon and David Cooper, were fitted-up for the killing of a post office worker during an armed robbery. It was such a blatant miscarriage of justice that a huge campaign developed, and after many years in prison the men were eventually freed. But crucially, their wrongful convictions were not overturned. Sadly, that did not prevent the campaign from collapsing, with Mickey and David being left to fight on virtually alone. Frustrated and embittered, like many miscarriage of justice victims they both died before their time.

After my release the need to keep up pressure on the establishment will not change, the campaign will be as important as ever. Yet many who do not understand the crushing weight of injustice will think Well hes free now, what’s he moaning about? I ask you friends, you who have been loyal to me during my darkest hours, not to turn away. After my release I will need your support more than ever.

This summer I am due to be released from a maximum security prison, where I currently spend more time locked in my cell than when I was first imprisoned 8 years ago. For me there have been no home leaves, days out, or any form of preparation for release. It seems as if the State has deliberately attempted to inflict the maximum psychological and physical damage on me.

So am I looking forward to getting out? Of course I don’t want to live in these dreadful conditions forever, and I hope always for the day this nightmare will finally end. I hope I will enjoy spending more time with my children, and meeting you, my supporters. But freedom (such as it is) without justice does not have a sweet taste. Tragically, I’ve been in prison so long that getting out is a concept its difficult for me to understand on an emotional level, because I barely remember what the world outside is like. For me its like trying to taste a colour or smell a word, its something alien to me. For the past 8 years I have been disenfranchised from the human race. When I see the multifaceted images of life reproduced on TV I relate to them in much the same way as I might view images of Mars. Everything I read about in the newspapers is foreign news to me, it describes a world I no longer know, and often it talks about things and concepts I have never known.

Even our simplest desires and aspirations are killed in prison, or at least they’re anaesthetised. If you read about a new type of food or drink for example, you might think Ill look out for that the next time I'm in the supermarket. But I have so little choice over what is available to me, the thought of wanting something I see or read about would never even occur to me. My youngest daughter recently asked me what my favourite meal was, and I couldn’t give her an answer. I didn’t know because for 8 years I’ve had so little choice in what I eat, and I’ve forgotten what it was like to have a choice. Like so much else, its completely outside my frame of reference. I know I like the taste of beer for example, but I have absolutely no tangible memory of what it tastes like.

I have not seen the stars for 8 years, not been kissed in 6, I’ve never had a view from my cell that wasn’t just concrete and razor-wire, and the only time I’ve been out of my cell after Midnight was during the 1997 Full Sutton prison riot. For most of my time inside my eyes have not been able to wander more than a few feet, and even out of my cell I’ve never been able to stray for more than a few yards.

I view the whole idea of getting out with some trepidation. Ill leave here jobless, homeless, and penniless, 8 years older, with my health damaged, and possibly with a whole world of grief to come. And with my burning thirst for justice unquenched.

The only sense of victory possible is that I’ve managed to survive the past 8 years without being killed or driven to insanity. And even if I think of that I must also think of my brothers and sisters, the friends and comrades I leave behind in these awful places, and those whom I’ve seen driven to suicide or madness, or the ones who have died of so-called natural causes, often screaming for help that never comes.

Sounds like these Ill remember all my days, as I will the smells of prison - the stink of filthy toilets, sheets and clothes that smell of someone else’s sweat, fresh faeces being smeared on a block-cell wall, the smell of new leather as a gloved fist punches you repeatedly in the face. And I doubt Ill ever forget the taste of prison food.

In the face of the States cruellest injustice I hope I’ve acquitted myself well, but of course it has affected me.

It seems a lifetime ago that I first entered these places, and I hope Ill be leaving for the last time. Thank you to all of you who have extended a hand of friendship to me, who have offered support and kindness and encouragement, and most importantly solidarity. It seems almost unfair to single out anyone when so many have helped me, but I'm sure those who have been involved in the campaign wont mind me mentioning Tilly in Huddersfield who has effectively run the campaign for several years, doing all the mundane jobs required, often single-handedly, and with little acknowledgement. Thanks Tilly.

I don’t know what will happen to me after my initial release, but my fight for justice will certainly continue, and I hope that I will be able to meet as many of you as possible.

The struggle continues!.

With love and respect to you all.

Mark Barnsley - Whitemoor Prison - April 2002

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

Prisoner can see his security reports

There were circumstances in which a post-tariff discretionary life prisoner challenging his security classification was entitled not merely to the gist of the reports before the Category A committee but to an oral hearing and full disclosure of those reports.

The Court of Appeal so held, allowing the appeal of Matthew Williams against the refusal by Mr Justice Harrison on June 27, 2001 to grant judicial review of the decision that he should continue to be categorised as a Category A prisoner.

Giving judgment the court, said that Mr Williams was charged with extremely grave offences including conspiracy to cause explosions, possession of explosive substances, arson and criminal damage with intent to endanger life. Five discretionary life sentences were imposed. The essential consideration was the long-term protection of the public.

A review was held. The Director of High Security Prisons approved the recommendation that Mr Williams should remain classified as Category A, high escape risk.

The only justification for his continued incarceration was the perceived risk to public safety. As part of the normal two-year cycle the case would be referred back to the panel.

The panel's clear recommendation in March 2000 that Mr Williams should be re-categorised had been ignored. The next application to the panel was bound to fail: Mr Williams's release could not properly be ordered.

Mr Owen argued that the refusal to re-categorise Mr Williams was incompatible with his rights under article 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998, to a fair hearing at the next Discretionary Lifer Panel review. The categorisation review team should adopt the conclusion of the panel.

That risk was mitigated by recognising that there were exceptional cases in which, subject to public interest immunity issues, the material available to the category A review team, in particular the reports on him rather than their gist, would be disclosed and the prisoner permitted an oral hearing.

The successful operation of that system depended on the review team, and since January 2001, the head of the category A review team, correctly identifying the cases which should be regarded as exceptional. The review team failed to recognise the special circumstances of the case. An open hearing before the panel, which had resulted in conclusions favourable to Mr Williams, was followed by a closed hearing before the review team.

On the basis of reports not available to the panel, Mr Williams or his legal advisers, the review team reached conclusions adverse to him which were seriously damaging to his prospects of release.

Once the panel's decision had been received, the review team should have recognised an obvious prospect of a major inconsistency between their respective conclusions. An oral hearing would have enabled the reasons for the contradictory views to be examined and for the contents of any adverse reports to be directly addressed. The review team would have reached its own decision, but an oral hearing and proper disclosure would have ensured that the decision was the result of a better informed process, and the conclusion, and the reasons, would have been received with correspondingly greater confidence.

Their Lordship’s set aside the decision to refuse an oral hearing and full disclosure.

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

Tommy Campbell,
                                     long time hostage of the state, often featured in MOJUK bulletins with Joe Steel, has been the victim of a knife attack. Campbell was allowed home after treatment at Glasgow Royal Infirmary.

He was given interim release pending his appeal on December 11th last year. He was only two days out of prison last year when he was told that a contract had been put out on him. Word on the street at the time was it was not criminals who were after him, (if criminals had wanted him dead, prison was the best place for it), but the police who were involved in the trial.

The incident is understood to have happened in a community centre in Hallhill Road, not far from Campbell's Barlanark home and one of Campbell's two assailant was stabbed with a fish knife during the attack.

The attack on Thomas "TC" Campbell followed an incident the week before in which an underworld figure, Tam McGraw, known as "The Licensee", survived a serious stabbing.

Sources told BBC News Online that the attack may have been in retaliation, although there was no suggestion that Campbell was responsible for the Tam mcGraw incident.

Police issued a statement which did not name the men but confirmed that they were investigating the possibility of a link between the attacks. Detectives said they had met with a wall of silence in trying to investigate the crimes but they sought to reassure the public that there would be no outbreak of gang warfare on the streets of Glasgow.

Sources indicated that McGraw only survived the stabbing because he was wearing a bullet-proof vest. "If he wasn't wearing a bullet-proof vest he would be dead.

IIt is fair to say that there may be a link between these incidents and it is a situation we are aware of and actively tackling

Det Supt Allan McFadyen "He received 20 blows but suffered only minor injuries to his arms and wrists and slightly more serious wounds to his buttocks."

Campbell, and his co-accused Joe Steele, are on interim liberation from prison pending a new appeal. They were jailed for life following the murder of six members of the Doyle family, who died in a house fire in Ruchazie in 1984.

The fire was linked to Ice Cream Wars in the city.

McGraw was a peripheral figure in the case but was never convicted of any wrongdoing.

He is still recovering after being attacked yards from his home in the city's east end. Police were said to be looking for a man aged in his late 20s in connection with the attack but refused to confirm that it was a stabbing incident. McGraw was found not proven of drug smuggling in 1998 and not proven of the attempted murder of a policeman 20 years earlier.

Police are understood to be working on the assumption that this was an attempted assassination, on Tommy Campbell and McGraw.

Tommy and Joe are still preparing papers for the appeal, which is still some distance in the future.