Eddie's solicitor Campbell Malone, has asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)to refer the case back to the court for a fresh appeal.

Mr Malone has argued that in the light of the recent House of Lords decision in the Pendleton Case, Eddies case must now be referred back by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal.

The importance of the Pendleton case cannot be underestimated.

Donald Pendleton was sent to jail 15 years ago for the murder of a Bradford newspaper seller. He has always maintained his innocence.

Pendleton's case was referred back to the Court of Appeal by the CCRC in 1999. But the Court of Appeal Judges stepped into the role of the jury and decided that despite the new evidence presented by Pendleton it would have made no difference to the jury's deliberations at the trial. He was sent back to prison.

In December 2001 the House of Lords quashed the conviction and Pendleton was released.

At the House of Lords the Pendleton case raised questions about the role of the judges at the Court of Appeal.

The lawyers representing Pendleton asked the Lords to clarify the role of the Court of Appeal when faced with new evidence never heard by the trial jury.

The lawyers took the view that the judges at 'the Court' of Appeal must not substitute themselves for the jury by trying to guess what significance the jury may or may not have placed on new evidence presented at the Court of Appeal. Put simply, the judges at the Court of Appeal must not act as judge and jury.

   "The Court of Appeal strayed beyond its true function of review and made findings which were not open to it in all the circumstances. Indeed, it came perilously close to considering whether the appellant, in its judgement, was guilty."

Lord Bingham's judgement runs to several pages and makes a number of clear points including,

'Trial by jury does not mean trial by jury in the first instance and trial by Judges of the Court of Appeal in the second.'

The law has always been clear. The Court of Appeal must decide whether evidence not heard at the trial but presented at the Court of Appeal is admissible and credible.

Once the court has decided that the evidence is admissible and credible then the court must eitiier quash the conviction or order a retrial.

The role of the Appeal Court is to review the evidence. The judges must not deal with a case as if they were the jury. They must not try to guess what the jury would have made of any new evidence presented at the Court of Appeal.

Although the law has always" been clear on this point, the judges at the Court of Appeal have often decided that new evidence presented to them would have made no difference to the jury's deliberations and the jury's conclusion at the trial.

Time after time the judges at the Court of Appeal have strayed beyond their true function - as a court of review. They must not retry the case by adopting the role of the jury, but this is what they did in the Pendleton case and this is what they have done in so many other cases.

They strayed beyond their true function in Eddie's case.

The case against Eddie is completely different to the case that was put to the jury at the trial. Therefore the judges at the Court of Appeal should not have put themselves in the place of the trial jury by concluding that the jury would have 6till convicted if they had heard the new evidence.

Because the case is now so different to that which the jury heard, the judges should have either quashed the conviction or at the very least ordered a retrial. On a recent visit to the prison Eddie said,

"At my last appeal the new evidence proved that I could not have committed the alleged crime and the prosecution experts agreed. If the jury had heard this, I would never have been convicted. The Appeal Court Judge's broke the law in my case. If the judges would have followed the law I would now be free. "

We await the decision of the CCRC and in the meantime we will still press on with the application to the European Court. Eddie's lawyers have sent the House of Lords Judgement in the Pendleton case to the European Court.

We are hopeful that we can get the case back to the Court of Appeal either through the CCRC or Europe.

Appeal Court Issue

Campbell Malone remains committed to campaign for a change in the Appeal Court process. He recognises the importance of working with miscarriage of justice campaigns and individuals.

Firstly though he needs the support of his colleagues in the legal profession to provide a firm professional basis to take the issues forward. To this end he has met on a number of occasions with his professional colleagues. They last met in November and are due to meet again this month. The group of lawyers he has met with have decided to call themselves 'Criminal Appeal Lawyers Association.' He hopes not only to work with campaigns and individuals to push for change, but he also hopes that the group will provide a support base providing help and advice to victims of miscarriage of justice. Of course this all takes time as most lawyers are extremely busy but we do believe the outcome will be well worth waiting for.

Eddie has asked us to pass on his warm thanks to all of you who sent him Christmas cards and all of you who took the time to write letters of support over the Christmas period.

Eddie constantly tells us that the main thing that keeps him strong is your cards and letters of support. He said that during the times when he is feeling at his lowest, he draws strength from reading over the kind words and sentiments sent from his supporters.

He tries desperately hard to reply to all of his mail but is only allowed to purchase a certain number of stamps, most of which he uses to send letters fighting his case. The prison will not allow postage stamps to be sent into the prison but will allow stamped addressed envelopes.

Eddie said that some people forget to include their address so he is unable to respond.

He has become a prolific letter writer, which helps him pass the time. He asks that letters sent to him include a stamped addressed envelope. He feels so guilty when he is unable to respond to his mail for the sake of a stamp.

Thank you for your continued support and donations to the campaign.

You can find out more about Eddies case by writing to the address below and you can help Eddie in his fight for justice by sending cheques or postal orders made payable to;

'The Eddie Gilfoyle Campaign Fund'

C/O Susan Caddick

PO Box 1845

Stoke On Trent

ST7 4EG

or telephone us on -

0781 501 2372 - or E-mail Paul.Caddick0lbtinternet.com

You can help by affiliating (affiliation fee 10.00's) your group or organisation to the

Eddie Gilfoyle Campaign

You can write to:

'Innocent Eddie Gilfoyle'

DX 1827

HMP Wakefield

Love Lane

Wakefield

WF2 9AG

'Innocent Eddie Gilfoyle' web site

https://www.mojuk.org.uk/eddie/ed.html

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

The full text of the House of Lords decision is available from MOJUK:

If you want a copy, return a *blank email and in the subject line put:

Subscribe: Pendleton

Please note

*A BLANK email: contains no text, other than that contained in the subject line.

Requests for docs that have text in the body part (where you write your message, the part you are now reading) are automatically rejected by the server.