UK Non Gamstop CasinosUK Casinos Not On GamstopNon Gamstop CasinoCasinos Not On GamstopCasinos Not On GamstopCasinos Not On Gamstop

The Price of Life: The Case of Graham Huckerby and James Power

Robbery at the Midland Bank Clearing Centre
On 3 July 1995 masked robbers took approximately �6.6 million from a security van that was outside the Midland Bank Clearing Centre in Salford, Manchester. They gained access to the van by taking one of the security officers hostage. Holding a shotgun to the window of the van, they demanded that Graham Huckerby, the driver, open the doors. Graham was told that the other guard had been taken hostage by the robbers and would be killed.

The guard in question had left the van moments before to sign the delivery in, he was not in sight or radio contact with Graham at the time.

As trained to do so, and recalling a recent incident in which armed raiders had������ viciously attacked another of his colleagues, Huckerby did not hesitate. At gunpoint Huckerby was told to drive away. He was told to drive a short distance before being told to stop the van, at which point he was tied to some railings and left by the robbers who drove away with the �6.6 million.

The Police Seek a Scapegoat?
The police, for obvious reasons, like to hold someone to account whenever money or lives are lost. The huge sum of money taken in the Midland Bank heist resulted in a real need to gain a conviction; anything less than success in this respect would have been viewed as unacceptable. The efforts of Greater Manchester Police, however, failed to locate any of the raiders or any of the money that was they took.

On 14 March 2002, following a retrial, both James Power and Graham Huckerby were convicted on the charge of 'conspiracy to commit armed robbery' and sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment. Additionally Huckerby was ordered to pay his former employer tens of thousands of pounds. Unable to do so he has received an additional eighteen-month sentence. Are their convictions safe, however, or have these two men been imprisoned for a crime for which they continue to maintain they are innocent?

Satisfying the 'Burden of Proof'?
In order to satisfy the 'burden of proof' the prosecution speculated about the explanation of various pieces of 'evidence'. Neither individually nor accumulatively can these be viewed as sufficient justification for the two convictions

Bank Deposits
To 'prove' Huckerby conspired to rob it was shown that during 1995 and 1996 he had deposited approximately �2400 in to his bank account. It was alleged that the payments were consistent with him having recently gained a large sum of money and that it was more than just a coincidence that a robbery, of the security van he was driving, had taken place at around this time.

The prosecution's argument can be dismissed by considering alternate explanations as to the sources of this income. On 14 August 1995 Huckerby's mother drew �600 from her bank account. This explains a sum of �600, which was paid in to Huckerby's account later that same day. The prosecution accepted that Huckerby's mother was the true source of this payment.

An equally simple explanation for the majority of the remaining money can be presented. Approximately �1500 was paid in to Huckerby's account as a result of a loan repayment. In 1993 Huckerby had lent a friend a large amount of money, which was paid back to him in a number of installments. In court the friend was able to produce documentary evidence relating to the repayment of the loan and so this explanation, for the majority of the �2400, paid in to Huckerby's account in the period 1995 to 1996, cannot realistically be disputed.

It was alleged that Power's finances had also improved as a result of the robbery. The prosecution pointed to bank deposits totalling �12,000. However, at no point did Power have �12,000; the deposits spanned a large period of time and when money was paid into the account it was soon withdrawn. The prosecution informed the court of money paid into the account, but not the money paid out. Between 1991 and 1996 Power always had money in his account, with money being paid in and out frequently. Power sold cigarettes and alcohol and so it was not unusual for money to be paid into his account; transactions had been made before the crime.

If the men were guilty then how come they gained so little money when �6.6 million was stolen?

'Jet Set' Lifestyle?
The prosecution alleged that following the incident Huckerby began to enjoy what they called a 'jet set' lifestyle. Huckerby, they told, had travelled abroad, on holiday, a number of times since 1995. Such alleged extravagance and luxury suggests the spending of the profits he received from a robbery.

It is true that Huckerby had been on a number of foreign holidays since 1995, the number being two. In 1996 he had visited the USA and stayed with a member of his family who lived in the country. In 1999 he travelled to Corfu for one week. It hardly requires criminal activity to fund two holidays. The reference to a 'jet set' lifestyle is therefore greatly misleading.

Too Generous To Be Innocent?
In addition to the payments in to Huckerby's account, and his 'numerous' foreign holidays, the prosecution tried to demonstrate that his financial standing had improved following the robbery by claiming that Huckerby had bought 'expensive' gifts for his daughter. It was claimed that such extravagance was only consistent with that of someone who had recently acquired a large amount of money and, as the robbery had had only taken place three months earlier, they alleged that his involvement in the offence must have been the reason for his increased wealth.

If expensive gifts were purchased this would suggest the possibility of his involvement. However, the term 'expensive' is a relative descriptive word in that what is viewed as expensive to one individual may not at all be seen to be expensive to another. The gifts purchased were a pair of Kickers shoes, two CD's and some perfume. By the prosecution's logic only criminals are generous. The reality of the situation is that Huckerby had sufficient funds in his bank account to easily afford such gifts. After all, the presents were bought in September and the previous month �600 had been paid in to his account from his mother.

A 'Sweetener For the Robbery'
To further demonstrate Huckerby's involvement in the robbery, the prosecution counsel showed that he had received approximately �1000 in cash in May 1995, two months before the crime, which they alleged was a 'sweetener for the robbery'.

Once again an innocent explanation as to the source of this money can be provided, which destroys the prosecution's argument. In May 1995 Huckerby had moved house and, as a gift, his parents gave him �1000 to help fund the costs of furnishing his new home.

The fact that a large sum of money was paid in to Huckerby's bank account before the crime, in addition to the other payments previously discussed, must surely act in his favour by providing proof that it was not out of character for him to receive large amounts of money following the robbery.

Restless and Preoccupied; He Must Be Guilty!
The prosecution presented evidence that Huckerby had been restless and preoccupied whilst at Oldham Royal Hospital, on the day prior to the robbery, when he had visited his daughter. Is this an indication of involvement in a forthcoming crime? It is certainly not if a reasonable explanation can be provided as in this instance. It is not unusual for individuals at hospitals to be experiencing anxiety, restlessness and agitation. For Huckerby he was deeply worried about his eleven-year-old daughter who had been admitted to the hospital several days earlier. Despite the amount of time that she was in the hospital, the doctors were unsure as to what was causing her severe pain. His feeling of helplessness and annoyance towards the hospital staff, who did not seem to be carrying out their responsibilities, was reflected in his restless manner. Under such circumstances is it not understandable that a father should express distress for his child's health? This cannot be classed as evidence of his involvement in the robbery. Instead it seems reasonable to accept that this may well be evidence that he is simply a concerned father.

Why Did Huckerby Do It?
With the explanations as to the sources of the money acquired following the crime, there seems to be no evidence that Huckerby's finances improved at all as a result of his actions. Therefore, if guilty, what was his motive in carrying out the offence? There is no evidence to prove any motive and it should be remembered that the motiveless crime is a figment of the imagination.

The evidence used against Huckerby is therefore insufficient to support a hypothesis that Huckerby was in anyway responsible for the heist. Can the same be said of Power?

Power did not work for Securicor and was not even present at the Midland Bank Clearing Centre on the day of the robbery. To suggest Power's participation in the offence the prosecution relied predominantly upon the evidence of telephone calls made between Power and Huckerby.

The Evidence of the Telephone Calls
It was demonstrated that Huckerby and Power had made numerous telephone calls to one another in 1995, the year of the robbery. This was deemed to be suggestive of them together having forged a plot to commit the offence. How can this be said? Huckerby and Power were occasional drinking partners and both men continue to maintain that the phone calls, most of which lasted only for a matter of seconds, were of a social nature to ask whether the other man wished to go for a drink.

The evidence presented only showed phone calls that were made after 1995, when itemised billing was introduced. Telephone calls had been made prior to this year and continued after the robbery. Indeed calls had been exchanged as far back in time as the 1980's. In the absence of transcripts of the telephone conversations, and those that took place when the two men met in person, little weight should be placed on such information. It is more than a possibility that crime was never the subject of conversation and without proof of the contrary this information should not have been admissible as 'evidence'.

Is it so inconceivable that two friends should wish to phone one another for a legitimate purpose or are we to believe that this can only suggest they are criminals? To rely upon this evidence would be highly dangerous.

A Drunken Conversation
During the police investigation, officers frequented local pubs in the hope of being able to speak with their suspects. On numerous occasions in 1996 an undercover police officer spoke with a drunken James Power. Other individuals were also targeted but no information deemed relevant was uncovered. The officer who spoke with Power claimed to be a disgruntled Securicor security guard who wished to have his van robbed. Power was asked if he knew of anyone who could help pull off a successful robbery. At trial it was heard that Power told the officer that he knew a group of criminals known as 'the London mob.' However, as Power rightly says, the fact he knew the mob in 1996 does not prove he knew them in 1995, or that he was involved with criminal activities with these individuals. Seeing as though these criminals have not been in any way connected to the robbery at the Midland Bank Clearing Centre how is Powers' knowledge of them relevant? If a defendant's criminal record is inadmissible why should the criminal activities of acquaintances to a defendant be viewed differently?

Effectively the officer was inciting Power in to claiming that he could arrange a robbery. It is dangerous to entrap a suspect because the suspect might not even have considered the criminal offence until the undercover officer suggested it. Power did not attempt to gain contact with the officer and did not even recognise him at a later stage, which suggests that he did not truly intend to engage in any criminal activity; the conversation clearly did not leave a profound impression. No accurate records of the conversations exist and it must be stressed that both men were very drunk and the conversations were only written up on the morning after which they were made. They can hardly be considered proof of Power's involvement in a crime that had taken place eighteen months earlier.

An important question must be asked; if either man was believed to be responsible in some way for the crime, when the investigation into them took place in 1996, then why was it not until years later that they were charged and convicted?

Total Bewilderment
In 2002 Graham Huckerby expressed his disbelief as to his conviction by saying, "I still feel totally bewildered and demoralised by all the circumstances. I pray continually that the justice system will finally live up to its name."� It is not particularly surprising that both Huckerby and Power are bewildered and demoralised when it is considered that for each piece of 'evidence', presented by the prosecution, there is a more plausible innocent explanation.

After the conviction, Alan Conrad QC, Huckerby's trial barrister, stated, "In 25 years at the criminal bar I have never come across a case which has disturbed and worried me so much"�

Letters of support/solidarity to:

James Power,
DW6918
HMP Lowdham Grange,
Nottingham
NG14 7DA

Graham Huckerby,
DW 6925
HMP Dovegate
Uttoxeter
Staffs
ST14 8XR

To contact 'The Friends of Graham Huckerby' campaign group write to:
'Friends Of Graham Huckerby'
Susan Kelly
86 Clifton Road
Prestwich
Manchester
M25 3HR

Source for this Page: Scott Lomax
[email protected]

����Page Source:�� �

�����Disclaimer:

����� Home: