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

Phil Taylor, is �Out and About�, served the full sentence all but three days. Phil sends regards to all those he has left behind and will now be stepping up his seven year battle against his wrongful imprisonment.

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

Justice for Peter Hannigan and Ihsan Ulhaque - the Belgium Two

Peter Hannigan and Ihsan Ulhaque, are currently in HMP Dovegate, serving 12yrs each for the importation of drugs a crime they did not commit.

The story of the Belgium 2 is a long and complex one which resulted in two people being sentenced to 12 years imprisonment each, so what is this horrific crime that warranted these people losing their liberty for such a long period of time? According to both Peter Hannigan and Ihsan Ulhaque (who prior to the events had never met), their objective was to import designer clothing into the UK, according to their charge sheet they were conspiring to import �3.2 million worth of class A and class B drugs into the UK. So where could such a discrepancy between intent and 'actuality' have arisen. Because both Peter Hannigan and Ihsan Ulhaque are Innocent.

* Peter Hannigan was asked to supply a vehicle for the importation of some clothing from Belgium, the clothing was not immediately available when it arrived in Belgium and so it was deemed prudent to leave the vehicle their and for the driver to return to the UK (the consignment would not be ready for over a week).

* Ihsan Ulhaque was to drive the vehicle from its loading point to a point where the original driver could collect it and drive it back to the UK.

* When Mr. Ulhaque went to collect the vehicle he noticed a Police presence around it.

* When the Original driver, accompanied by Mr. Hannigan discovered that Mr. Ulhaque had not delivered the vehicle, they went to the loading point and found a distraught Mr. Ulhaque saying that something strange was occurring and that the Police were watching the vehicle.

* Without further question, all three people decided that things were not what they seemed to be and arranged to fly back to the UK.

* They were then each charged just over two weeks later with conspiring to import class A and class B drugs into the UK.

What the above story does not tell is what we have since learned happened whilst both Mr. Hannigan and the driver were in the UK awaiting notification that the consignment of clothing was now ready.

* At some stage between 18th February 2000 and the 28th February 2000, persons unknown placed over �3 million worth of drugs into the van that was parked on a hotel car park.

* The Belgian police were informed at 9:30 in the morning of the 28th February 2000, that a van which had been parked in the hotel carpark for a number of days had been broken into as the side door was now ajar ... the informants were a hotel worker and the hotel manager.

* According to the above mentioned hotel employees the police arrived at the scene less than half an hour later.

* According to the Belgian police, they arrived three hours later.

* According to the hotel employees, the van was parked in the position it had occupied for over a week.

* According to the Belgian police, the vehicle was parked some 30 metres away with its front bumper touching a crash barrier separating the car park from a busy motorway.

* According to the hotel staff, such a crash barrier does not and has not existed for at least 20 years.

* The Belgian police observed an English registered vehicle approaching the van, its driver was later identified as a Portuguese national who had a criminal record for the importation/exportation of drugs ... they failed to ever even question this man.

* Did not take any fingerprints from the van.

* Did not take any photographs of the van whilst it was en situ.

* Did not make any notes or logs relating to their observations whilst the vehicle was under surveillance.

When Mr. Hannigan and the driver discovered from Mr. Ulhaque that the vehicle was being watched, they immediately made arrangements to leave Belgium, unfortunately they could not get a flight until the following day (29th February 2000), so they booked into the hotel and arranged to go to another hotel for a meal and some drinks (strange actions for drugs barons). During the trial, the prosecution was hellbent on proving that Mr. Hannigan and the driver were observing the van themselves (possibly with a view to making a run for it?) ... so how did the prosecution go about this ...

* Mr Hannigan stated that he and the driver were together at all times that evening.

* The Belgian police claim that the driver was seen in the vicinity of the van (one officer claimed that this was at 9:00 PM whilst another claimed it was at 9:45 PM)

* The prosecution produced an itemised mobile phone log which showed that Mr. Hannigan had telephoned the driver during the period when they were allegedly together in the bar ... therefore they cannot have been together at all times.

* The prosecution stated that Mr. Hannigan and the driver actually left the bar where they were having a drink at 9:14, they produced a credit card receipt to prove that Mr. Hannigan closed his account at the bar at 9:14 PM.

* Mr. Hannigan could offer no explanation at the trial why on earth the credit card receipt should state 9:14 when in actuality they left at 8:28PM. ... Mr. Hannigans credibility was seriously undermined on this point.

* It later transpired after the trial that the hotel bar take all credit card receipts that state payment of a gratuity and put them to one side, then when the bar is quiet, they will process all the credit cards at once ... in this case, Mr. Hannigan and the driver did close their account at 8:27, they offered a gratuity to the barstaff, the barstaff processed this at 9:14 over 45 minutes after Mr. Hannigan and the driver had left the bar.

The above points are just a snapshot of some of the many many inconsistencies that lead to the imprisonment of Peter Hannigan and Ihsan Ulhaque ... Please write to them both.

Peter Hannigan
FG 5264
HMP Dovegate
Uttoxeter
Staffordshire
ST14 8XR

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

Sex Abuse Cases

House of Commons: Westminster Hall, Wednesday 16th October 2002

An *adjournment debate in the House of Commons, yesterday the issue of how evidence is gathered in sex abuse cases.

All the MP's who spoke expressed grave concerns in the way police had gathered evidence the only dissenting voice was that of the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety John Denham, who didn't believe a word anyone had said.

Extracts from debate:

. . . . All those people discuss their grave concerns about the processes that the police use to execute their inquiries. I think that often, the only difference between those who are acquitted and those who are convicted is luck,

. . . . the processes employed by the police in the execution of their duty, which have been compounded by the Crown Prosecution Service, lead me to believe that opportunities exist for the judiciary and the criminal justice system to abuse those processes to deliver a result.

. . . . How do the police come by the allegations that place those individuals in such a predicament? Police use a number of processes, one of which is trawling, and they receive complaints from a number of sources.

. . . . What is trawling, and where do the complaints come from?

. . . . Some come from solicitors who manage compensation schemes. Their advertisements say, "No win, no fee," and, "Have you been subject to a traffic accident?" or "Have you been abused? If so, you may be entitled to compensation."

. . . . There are also cases in which the police go "cold calling" and realise complaints directly.

. . . . During the conversation the police can say, "There's compensation available; it's only right that you should receive that."

. . . . You know, you're coming up for parole," which may be in 20 years' time, 10 years' time, five years' time or next week. "How good will it look for your parole that you have identified the fact that you were abused as a child?"

. . . . They have more to gain from helping the police than just money. They receive many visits from the police and see much activity. They become the centre of attention; they are not the baddy any more, but the goody.

. . . . Some are very much persuaded by the opportunity to get a good report when it comes to parole time.

. . . . It cannot be right that the only evidence used to convict a man is that obtained by the police from a witness in privacy, with no independent witnesses to the interview.

. . . . People accused have very little recourse to appeal, because they need new evidence, for example about the incompetence of their team. There will be no new evidence for cases in which people believe there was no evidence to convict them in the first place.

*adjournment debate:

This is a method in parliament for MP's to raise matters that concern them, which would not normally be debated.

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

Police are blamed for drug deaths in custody By Jason Bennetto, The Independent

Police officers failed to notice in time that prisoners were critically ill in nine out of ten drug-related deaths in custody, a study has found.

In a significant number of cases involving fatal overdoses, prisoners were able to smuggle drugs past police and take them while in custody, the research also discovered.

The head of research at the independent Police Complaints Authority [PCA] blamed the "poor" and "inadequate" training of custody officers for the high number of deaths.

In a fifth of the cases of fatal overdoses, the custody officers failed to find the drugs which were later taken by the prisoner in a cell, police station or vehicle, researchers discovered.

Dr David Best, head of research at the PCA, said: "From the evidence we have gathered, the training of custody staff is inadequate. Drug-related deaths account for about a quarter of all fatalities in police custody. There have been 233 deaths in custody in England and Wales in the past five years, but in the year to April 2002 there were 19 drug and alcohol-related deaths out of at total of 34.

Dr Best said the problem was particularly bad with civilian custody officers and police constables who receiving minimal or no training. In eight of the 42 deaths examined - 19 per cent - prisoners overdosed on drugs while in police custody. That means - in all those cases - the police failed to find drugs hidden on the suspect despite carrying out body searches.

In 15 deaths - about a third - the prisoners swallowed their drugs in an attempt to hide them from the police and overdosed or choked to death.

Surprisingly researchers found the drug that caused the most deaths was not heroin, as widely believed, but cocaine and crack-cocaine, which was found present in 60 per cent of the overdose cases.

The average age of the dead was 32, although they ranged from 15 to 65 and most were white men. Several police officers have been reprimanded after drug-related deaths. Three officers were disciplined over the death of a Gareth Brogden, 18, who choked on a condom filled with heroin in February 2000. The teenager, from Hartlepool, Cleveland, was nicknamed "Balaclava Boy" at the age of 11 after he wore a black mask on television and boasted about a series of crimes. As Brogden was arrested for a motoring offence he placed the drugs in his mouth. He was handcuffed and placed on his own in the back of van and taken to Hartlepool police station where he collapsed. An inquest said his death was an accident.

Three officers were disciplined in the case of Paul Harding, 48, who managed to conceal cocaine. He died in February 2001 of an overdose after taking the drug in his cell at Colindale police station in north London. The PCA's full report, is due to be published in March.