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

Wrongfully Accused, Wrongfully Convicted, in Denial

My name is Alec Qizilbash,I am 40 years of age and I have been wrongly convicted of Rape. I am serving a 6 year prison sentence, I am in denial. It was consensual sex between myself and a young woman.

I had in March 2001 moved into a flat next door to this young woman, I met her on the stairs a few times.

She alleged I raped her on 20th April, 2001, I had invited her into my flat that day, she had the baby with her in a buggy.

I made her coffee, we just had a general chit chat, she said after a few moments she said, "I know you don't want to bother with someone like me but I really fancy you’, I was surprised, she said ‘now I'm embarrassed" and I said "don't be" she came and sat by me and we began to kiss, we kissed again and cuddled eventually after 10-15 minutes I said "do you want to go to bed?" She said "yeah".

We went into the bedroom undressed and began to have sex, after five minutes she said I haven't had sex for a year and its painful, I said is everything O.K. so I stopped.

We both dressed she stayed for about 5-10 minutes and then she left.

She went upstairs to a neighbour, who lives above me, who is also a young woman who lives alone with her young son. I believe she only knew this other neighbour slightly, the neighbour then called for the police, who came and arrested me.From that day I was not allowed to stay at my flat because the young neighbour who phoned the police was a witness for me prosecution.

On the 17th August 2001, I was tried for Rape and convicted, the Jury returned a Guilty verdict of 10-2.

On Thursday, 20th September I was sentenced for 6 years at Cardiff Crown Court.

On Friday, 5th October, 2001,1 was moved to Dartmoor prison. I applied to be moved to Usk Prison to enable my Mother to visit me and this is where I am now.

I include extracts from the Judges "summing up", about the person who accused me of rape.

She was asked about her medical history and agreed that she had taken an overdose after the alleged rape but said that this was not her first overdose, there have been others in the past,

She told you about previous allegations of sexual abuse, how her brother was arrested but declined to comment when he was interviewed by the police and, therefore, there was not enough evidence to substantiate her allegations.

She says that she was sexually abused and that is why she went into ‘care’. She also told you that in the Summer of 1996 she had been clubbing in Norwich and gone out with four people, she had gone home on her own and when she was going back had been attacked and raped by a stranger, which she had reported to the police but there had been no further action, by which I take it to mean no-one was arrested for it and, therefore, that matter laid in abeyance.

But again, significantly, she does not say that that did not happen. She says it did happen.

It may be that you will say that this was a vulnerable young woman and vulnerable young women do not always suffer one misfortune. They can sometimes suffer more than one.

But it is history that the defence rely upon to say that she is a serial victim and that she is making allegations again which are untrue.

In 1999, according to the formal admission which was read to you just before Mr. Kelly spoke to you, clinical notes say that on the 29th September "raped 3 three weeks ago" "police not involved and then a fortnight later raper", rapist I expect it meant, "raper had vasectomy" of that she said she did not make that allegation.

In 1998 she told you that she had been to see a Psychiatrist. She said she had seen different ones over the years. She disputed, when it was put to her, that she was understood to have a personality disorder, a borderline personality disorder.

Mr. Kelly then took a fuller history from her. She had been in touch with Social Services at 14 years, taken into Care at 15 years. She had her baby when she was 20 years, she married,her marriage ended and she said she is in the middle of a divorce, and had returned to live in Wales as her parents lived there. She was given a Council flat next door to myself and she had been living there about 5 months, alone with her baby.

When she was cross-examined by my Barrister, Mr. Buckland he asked, who was it that "used the word "rape"? She replied, "Well she said that he had had sex with her and I said "so he's raped you?" and she said "Yes", So, Raped, the word first came from the witness neighbour Amanda Burns. "From Summing Up Copy"

She told you she has been taking sleeping tablets since she was 17 years. She had been taking anti-depressant tablets until about four years ago, taking Prozac and did drink vodka.

After the trial on the day of sentencing the Judge revealed that he had received two letters from two Jury Members who stated that they were concerned that the accuser had been taking sleeping pills, living alone in a flat in full care of her 10 month old daughter - they asked the Judge to contact Social Services to ensure that the matter was corrected as it was not possible for a Mother to care for a baby when taking sleeping tablets - the Judge called a Social Worker into Court who said she would address the matter - at me trial her parents nor family attended, she has since moved out of the next door flat.

I feel that my Barrister did not defend me with any strength whatsoever and the Judge enhanced the Accuser in his summing up.

My first Appeal has been refused but I am pushing my second Appeal and hope to God that the truth will emerge.

Alec Qizilbash
FP 7080
HMP Usk
47 Maryport Street
Usk NP15 1XP

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

Denial of Reality and the Parole Board

Below MOJUK, reprints a press release from the Parole Board,(Denial of Guilt and the Parole Board). One prisoners wife on reading it said, "This is complete and other crap (pardon the language)! Prison Officers are constantly putting pressure on prisoners to admit their guilt and show there remorse. If you refuse you are threatened with not getting paroled. My partner is in a VP unit for a crime he didn't commit and he is constantly pressured and threatened with ship-out if he doesn't admit it! And the parole board are no better."

The parole board boast that a key factor in releasing prisoners is (1) That they take offending behaviour work and (2) that the prisoner spends sometime in open prison. Now if you are in denial, you are unlikely to be doing the first and if you are not doing offending work your chances of getting the second a move to an open prison are very remote.

Press Release: Denial Of Guilt and the Parole Board

Particularly following the case of Stephen Downing, there has been much concern and some misunderstanding about the position of those maintaining innocence in prison and how this effects chances of parole or release on Life Licence.

A myth has grown up that unless prisoners admit and express remorse for the crime that they have been sentenced for, they will not get parole. This is not true. It is important to get the facts right, not least for those in prison who do maintain their innocence and who may be unnecessarily affected by the myth.

Firstly, legal precedent has established that it would be unlawful for the Board to refuse parole solely on the grounds of denial of guilt or anything that flows from that (such as not being able to take part in offending behaviour programmes which focus on the crime committed). The Board is bound to take account not only of the offence, and the circumstances in which it was committed, but the circumstances and behaviour of the individual prisoner before and during the sentence and his/her plans for re-settlement after release. It is important to understand that the Board is not entitled to "go behind" the conviction.That is the job of the appeal courts and the Criminal Cases Review Commission.The Board’s remit extends only to the assessment of risk, and the bottom line is always the safety of the public.

A recent survey by the Board showed that 31% of those maintaining innocence were released on parole or life licence, as compared with 46% of all prisoners.While this puts paid to the myth that denial of guilt means that parole is impossible,the survey also suggests that a prisoner’s chances of early release can be affected by the denial of guilt.

The Board is the first to recognise that its core task of assessing the risk of future harm to the public is often made more difficult when dealing with those who deny guilt.This is because there may simply be less information to go on, particularly where the prisoner has not been able to undertake some relevant offending behaviour work. Detailed reports of a wide range of offending behaviour programmes are a key source of information for Board members in working out how a prisoner operates and copes with life and therefore what the risk to the public of a future offence might be. In this context it is interesting to note the results of a sample of 50 recent release cases recommended (continued on back page)

(continued from page 3) by the Board.The fifty were all serving mandatory life sentences for murder. Of these, nine had maintained their innocence in whole or in part throughout their sentence. While the circumstances of the murders,and the background of the prisoners varied enormously - from hardened criminals, to those of previous good character - there were two key factors which led to release on life licence. In all cases the individuals had spent a considerable period in "open conditions", where their response to life in the community could be closely monitored. The majority had also undertaken a variety of offending behaviour work such as anger management, assertiveness, thinking skills all of which helped the Board to assess any future risk to the public, irrespective of a denial of guilt or lack of remorse for the offence which led to the conviction.

Overall, the Board is painfully conscious of the psychological pressure often experienced by those who maintain their innocence in prison. It respects their position and would not wish anyone to pretend guilt simply to get parole.

Equally, it is important for those people to respect and understand the Board’s position, focusing always on the risk to the pubic in the future balanced against the needs, expectations and rights of the individual in prison.

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

Christopher Alder, was there collusion between the police and the CPS?

Monkey chants as black man died 'not racist' Vikram Dodd, Tuesday July 23, 2002, The Guardian

A tape capturing monkey chants made as a black man lay dead on a police station floor was missed by investigators for nearly four years, it emerged yesterday.

Tapes from the custody suite cameras were seized in April 1998, but a section containing monkey chants and laughter was not investigated until March 2002, a fortnight before the trial began.Mr Alder's family are furious that this evidence was never put before the jury. The crown prosecution service said it never tried to have this evidence admitted because it could not be determined who was making the noises. Last night the CPS and West Yorkshire police, who investigated the case, refused to say whether any of the officers on the tape had been questioned about who made the noises. But a source with knowledge of the investigation told the Guardian that none of the five officers was ever asked about the animal noises.

The CPS also said it could not be proved the monkey chanting was racist as someone could have been reacting or laughing at an officer who uttered the word "banana", shortly before the monkey chant is heard on the tape.

Mr Alder's sister, Janet Alder, said: "West Yorkshire police and the CPS have seen everything. How could they miss it? They just wanted this to go away. "It's typical of the racist, inhuman and disgraceful way they've treated my family and my brother. They've added to our hurt."

In a letter to Ms Alder, the CPS says an expert determined the sounds on the tape to be "chimpanzee or monkey like". It continued: "It is not possible to infer that there was a racist motivation here." The family and their legal team are calling for a public enquiry.

Barrister Peter Herbert, a member of the attorney general's race advisory body, called for a public inquiry.

He said the missed monkey chants were just one example of a bungled case.

"Anybody with any common sense knows monkey noises [are] evidence of racial abuse," he added.

The officers, who now face an internal disciplinary investigation, have returned to duty after being suspended for four years.

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

Winston Silcott, moved to an open prison

Winston Silcott, has now been moved to an open prison, HMP Blantyre House. A parole hearing is still a long way of and to all intents and purposes his campaign no longer exists. There used to be a dedicated web site for Winston, but that has now disappeared.

Innocent (Fighting Miscarriages Of Justice since 1993), carries some articles.

Winston Silcott

HMP Blantyre House
Horden
Goudhurst
Kent

TN17 2NH

A chronology of injustice

Compiled by Legal Action for Women, Crossroads books, 1998. Reviewed by Vince Dicey.

Anyone who believes the police racism manifested in the Stephen Lawrence case is a recent phenomenon should read A Chronology of Injustice: The Case for Winston Silcott's Conviction to be Overturned. This explains the background to Winston Silcott's continued imprisonment, seven years after he was cleared of the murder of PC Blakelock.

The book documents both the Blakelock frame-up and Silcott's lesser-known second conviction for the murder of Anthony Smith. This, a miscarriage of justice in its own right, is a wholly distinct case revolving around self-defence. It is the formal basis on which the state is keeping Winston behind bars, although repeated statements from the Police Federation, which the authors catalogue, make clear the pressure the police are exerting for him never to be released.

From the 1960s socialists warned that the apparatus of repression the British state was building in Northern Ireland would eventually be used on mainland Britain. In 1983 this prediction was literally made flesh when Sir Kenneth Newman, Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, was appointed Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

As well as bringing plastic bullets and surveillance methods in his briefcase, that year Newman made a speech to the right wing European Atlantic Group (EAG), in which he identified "two particular problems in Western societies which have the potential to affect the balance between order and freedom. The first problem is concerned with the growth of multi-ethnic communities. The second is related to indigenous terrorist movements engaging in terrorism to promote separatism or an extreme ideology".

Sir Kenneth put his boots under the desk in the aftermath of the Brixton riots of 1981 and the ensuing report of the Scarman inquiry. Scarman made a series of recommendations to improve police-community relations - which included taking action against racist police officers! Newman acceded to the Scarman points but simultaneously implemented the philosophy he had expounded to the EAG: "the police leadership singled out four inner-city multi-racial neighbourhoods in London… where, superimposed on community policing, policing by consent, was confrontational policing, policing by force, which had conquered during the 1984-85 miners' strike".

Against the background of 'saturation policing', the immediate spark which ignited the 1985 riots was the death of a local black woman from a heart attack after police pushed her during an illegal house search. When Broadwater Farm residents tried to stage a protest march to the Tottenham police station, officers blocked-off the estate. During the disturbances this provoked, PC Blakelock was killed. Winston Silcott and two others were charged with the murder, in the midst of a hysterically racist and prejudicial media campaign which continues to damage Silcott's reputation to this day.

The book sketches the difficulties facing Winston Silcott in the period after the Blakelock conviction was quashed in 1991: "Unlike the Tottenham Three, Winston's murder conviction for the death of Anthony Smith did not seem to be political, and did not get as much publicity and support: although many people knew there was an injustice, it did not seem so great; after all, Winston had killed Anthony Smith - and Smith was black. Also, the Smith case was not seen in connection with the Blakelock case which has in fact dominated it".

Anthony Smith was a professional boxer with a record of violence outside the ring. He was part of a gang known in Tottenham for carrying guns, whose members had made death threats to Winston because of a dispute they had with a friend of his brother. At a party in December 1984, Smith and two accomplices were all carrying knives. There were several witnesses to the fact that Smith attacked Silcott first, before Winston was given a knife and struck back in self-defence. Unfortunately, through a combination of circumstances, including police failures and pressure from his original lawyers to change his story for 'tactical' reasons, his true defence of self-defence was not run at trial. The trial also took place weeks after Blakelock died, with Winston already demonised as a 'savage police killer'.

In November 1998 the Criminal Cases Review Commission decided not to refer the Smith case to the Court of Appeal, despite the fresh evidence about the attack on Silcott which had been submitted to the Home Office in 1992. Socialists must help publicise Winston Silcott's plight, including the political reasons for his continued detention. Books like this are a vital resource to arm activists with the facts.

Chronology of Injustice: The case for Winston Silcott's conviction to be overturned

Chronology compiled by Niki Adams, Legal Action for Women

Preface by International Black Women for Wages for Housework

Edited by Selma James

�4.00 public, �8 professionals & institutions, or $10.00

To order book send a cheque or postal order in US$ or UK� made payable to Crossroads Books and send to:

Crossroads Books, PO Box 287, London, NW6 5QU, England

=========

A few Words from Mark Barnsley

I think it‚s going to take a while before I start pushing the tops of taps instead of turning them, before I always remember to lock doors behind me, or remember to seal envelopes before posting them. Yet despite the continued efforts of the State to make life as difficult as possible for me, it‚s good to be able to walk around, and see my kids, and do those ordinary‚ things I’ve dreamed of doing for so long. It still feels a bit strange, but when I‚m not feeling scared, or anxious, or lonely, it feels good, and no where near as strange as I thought it would. It‚s been quite literally like waking from a nightmare, even if in some ways the nightmare continues.

In the weeks prior to my release a couple of particularly pathetic senior screws at Whitemoor tried to get my sentence extended by nicking me for refusing to work, but in the end they just wound up looking even more stupid than usual. More serious were attempts by a particularly vicious probation officer to intimidate my supporters, and set me up for an early return to prison by imposing license conditions‚ which I would have rejected absolutely on principle. Not content with making an unannounced visit on the home of the friend with whom I had been intending to stay, this former Royal Marine instigated a follow-up visit (also unannounced) by a police ‘intelligence officer’. It was quite clear from these visits, as it has been since my release, that perhaps predictably The Enemy are far more concerned with my perceived politics rather than anything directly to do with the Pomona Incident. When the lies and intimidation of this pair failed, RUC Special Branch came to their aid (Yes, in South Yorkshire!) in the form of a retired Branch man who is now a ‘security officer‚’ He objected to my living at the address which I had given, again because of my perceived politics, and so I was made homeless. It was only when another couple of friends kindly offered to put me up at very short notice that this was not used as an excuse to keep me behind bars.

Having won a recent judicial review undertaken by my former solicitor, Vicky King, I should actually have been released on the 21st of June, but consistent to the end the Prison Service chose to dig me out, keeping me in for one last weekend, and releasing me on June 24th. No matter. After more than 8 years of incarceration in the country’s worst prisons, what difference was a few more days going to make?

As you‚d expect I got no help from the State whatsoever, not even the offer of a shaving kit, clothing, or benefits advice. After 8 years I left a maximum security prison with �46 and a plastic bag containing some of my legal paperwork (with the bag clearly marked H.M. Prison Service‚.)

As the gate rolled back shortly before 10.00am, it was fantastic to see about 30 friendly faces, and the NUM national banner flying proudly. I couldn’t believe I was finally out, and I‚m sure my friends and comrades must have felt the same. I didn’t bother to ask the waiting cops what they thought.

After breakfast in the nearby town of March, it was back to South Yorkshire, where I saw my children for the first time in eight years outside a prison visiting room. Emma is approaching 18 now, a lovely intelligent young woman. Ellie is 12, and nearly as tall as her older sister. Even my little Daisy, the baby who was with me when I was attacked, is eight now. I couldn’t love them more.

Since my release I’ve been taking things one day at a time, but have been busy just trying to sort out the basics. It took several days to find a doctor, even longer to get my National Insurance number as I didn’t have any identification, and longer still to get a housing appointment. I still haven‚t been given any form of grant to help me pay for basics like clothes and toiletries, and the �46 I was given on my release had to last me 3 weeks. If it hadn’t been for the kindness of friends and supporters I don’t know what I would have done.

I have refused to sign the license‚ imposed upon me after the completion of the vicious sentence handed out after my travesty of a trial, and my solicitor is challenging the ridiculous conditions‚, such as an exclusion zone around The Star newspaper in Sheffield something which is entirely without basis, and a clear sign of a guilty editorial conscience. There are also attempts to restrict my movements even within the UK, an extension even of the onerous license conditions, and clearly part of an agenda of political control aimed at stopping me campaigning against my wrongful conviction. These too are being actively challenged, but my solicitor is having to waste time fighting these impositions, which both of us would rather he employed dealing with my application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

So, even while my chains have been extended I am not free, the harassment continues, and I still carry the burden of judicial injustice. For this reason it is more important than ever that the campaign is maintained, and I hope all of you will continue to support me as solidly as you have done in the past.

I am very much looking forward to meeting you all, and while it is not quite yet the time for celebration, I hope that as many people as possible will make an effort to attend the forthcoming national JfMB meeting and social , and that we can make a start for the day justice is finally achieved.

With love and respect to you all

Always in struggle

              Mark Barnsley

Mark Barnsley - PO Box 381, Huddersfield, HD1 3XX, England