Written evidence from JENGbA (CCR 40)
JENGbA’s submission to the Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into the effectiveness of the Criminal Cases Review Commission
JENGbA currently supports over 500 prisoners who have been convicted under joint enterprise. The Justice Select Committee are entirely aware of our campaign and we welcome this Inquiry into the CCRC as it was established by Royal Commission to be a remedy for potential miscarriages of justice.
JENGbA does not believe that the CCRC is currently fit for purpose. We believe there needs to be an independent examiner/ legal framework in place to deal with the unsafe, unfair convictions and sentences received by those we support. If this is to be the CCRC we would suggest that there are significant flaws in a body set up to rectify unsafe verdicts because of their inability to even recognise whether a case brought to them is a Joint Enterprise (as stated in their own submission to the JSC’s joint enterprise inquiry).
The volume of people we represent is such that it would take the CCRC in its current form an incredible amount of time to deal with them all. But time is what prisoners are serving and time should be the paramount objective to overturn wrongful conviction. Most of our prisoners applying to the CCRC (as a last ditch attempt to try and prove they are innocent of the crime of which they have been convicted) are told they will have to wait up to 2 years - this is morally wrong.
JENGbA’s campaign recognises and supports innocent people who are being sent to prison and because of this the number of people coming forward is rising. We believe there is a growing problem of trust within the justice system itself. It is this lack of trust and the injustices our prisoners are facing which the CCRC cannot resolve even if they were prepared to face it, which does not appear to be the case.
Many of our supporters believe a public inquiry may tackle the problem we face, but this can take years, if not decades, whilst people are still incarcerated, again at a vast cost to the British taxpayer.
At the moment the last option for prisoners fighting for their innocence is the CCRC and it can be argued it is better to have this as an option than to have nothing at all. But JENGbA propose, based on our knowledge of the vast experiences of prisoners (see attached our prisoners submissions), that the CCRC serves only as a block. They do not assist wrongful convictions; the only JE case to have been recommended back to the court of appeal in the last 13 years was Sam Hallam and it took that campaign several attempts with the CCRC and 9 years to get him there. On behalf of all JENGbA prisoners we don’t need to remind you that justice delayed is justice denied.
A massive problem for JE cases is the need to supply fresh evidence. This is a major problem for a person in prison, with no financial resources with the added problem that evidence of “foresight” and previous bad character (however minor) was all that was needed to gain a conviction.
What we think needs to be recognised, when examining whether the CCRC is fit for purpose, is why failures exist when it comes to cases of Joint Enterprise? Why are applications not being recognised as Joint Enterprise cases in the first place?
It is clear joint enterprise is causing miscarriages of justice on a massive scale and the members of the public we have come into contact with have said they too believe people are in prison who should not be there. The public think that the court of appeal is there so that experienced judges who recognise innocence will rectify this at the earliest opportunity. JENGbA and the families we represent know this is not the case. There is a strong belief in this country that if something is broken it will be fixed, no matter what that is. All right minded people expect an injustice to be rectified at the earliest opportunity, there is no argument or doubts about that. The vast majority of people are unaware of the true extent of how incredibly difficult it is to overturn a conviction no matter how blindingly obvious it is.
The JENGbA campaign is made up of people who are not legally trained, but ordinary people who are law abiding and in no way come from an organised criminal background as joint enterprise would suggest due to the convictions received by their loved ones. We all feel let down by the police, the CPS and the justice system as a whole. It is with great sympathy and respect for all the victims in each case we support, that we hang on with patience to the hope that in the very least the CCRC will serve to provide the gateway to the justice deserved for so many. If the CCRC are unable to even recognise a case as a JE case in the first instance how can they recognise the flaws that allowed the conviction to take place and then progress to rectify an unsafe verdict? These are conviction that ordinary members of the public have termed as people being in the wrong place at the wrong time. These are the words of the public not a phrase devised by JENGbA or even the media.
JENGbA would like to pose the question: if a ‘knowing look’ is enough to convict a person to life imprisonment for murder (as stated by Chris Grayling, see letter attached) can the CCRC confirm or deny that this knowing look ever existed in the first place?
Lynch mobs, ducking stools and media manipulation is not 21st Century justice and neither is speculation, possible foresight and scant evidence - yet this is what juries are being served. If no one is prepared to tackle the massive issue regarding joint enterprise prisoners via the courtrooms then in the very least an independent body such as the CCRC with, we would suggest, a unit to specialise in JE cases, ought to be put in place.
As stated previously, JENGbA is not an organisation set up by lawyers and yet on hearing about a case and asking specific questions we can clearly recognise the symptoms that create the injustice. The same issues arise again and again and people come to us thinking this has only happened to them. They believe there is a solution to what went wrong because until convicted they had no idea you could be convicted of murder whilst at the same time be proven not to have actually committed the murder, made no plan and in many cases not even known the victim, let alone had a grievance with them. They are baffled by what they call ‘mind reading’ but prosecutors call foresight.
JENGbA prisoners’ letters to Justice Select Committee Inquiry into CCRC – December 2014
Mr Roger Morgan HMP The Mount:
Dear Gloria
Thank you for selecting me to write some comments/representations on the CCRC being fit for purpose or not as the case may be. I would have written back sooner but I was waiting for a print out of INUK website as I knew that they had a symposium on the reform of CCRC. The document by Dr Michael Naughton & Gabe Tan is 94 pages and has some very interesting points made about the failings of the CCRC such as,
DAVID JESSEL, FORMER CCRC COMMISSIONER said “The Court of Appeal has used the ‘Real possibility test’ to shape the role of the CCRC, which was originally intended to refer cases that the public, the press, the non-judiciary and even the CCRC thought were miscarriages of Justice. Instead the balance has shifted towards the court of appeal, by instructing the CCRC only to send up cases where the court of appeal NOT the CCRC will consider whether a conviction was unsafe.”
Now unless I’ve gone mad Gloria, according to this David Jessel, if a case is simply thought to be a miscarriage of justice then in reality NO new evidence is needed to get back to court, in which case the CCRC are playing a daily lottery on whose life they are gonna put back together today. I call that counterproductive on the real possibility test that the CCRC use, ie: How can joint enterprise be pre-meditated murder? When you did not know the victim but your co-accused did & had the weapon you never knew about.
Another piece in this document says “as for historical cases – the CCRC used to refer historical cases until it received the clearest sign that such cases were not welcome by the court of appeal”. How shocking Gloria.
As for the laws of the CCRC I wish they would not be so rigid on ‘section 13’ , which stipulates that a referral should be based on some new argument or evidence that makes a significant difference – but that exceptionally it need not be something new. So why are the CCRC so insistent on having completely new to work with and as with my case, when they did find my new witness they didn’t pursue him and to date they won’t explain why.
Mr Raymond Gilbert HMP Kennett:
An age old law initially implemented to prevent duelling now being used to target inner city youth, under privileged.
How can an individual be handed the same sentence for having no knowledge or foresee an incident will happen. Even those in the vicinity or on the periphery can be charged with the most heinous crime.
People being handed brutal sentences, based on phone calls that don’t link them to the crime. No CCTV evidence to put them at the scene, lack of forensic, uncorroborated evidence, police malpractice to sustain convictions. The day of falsifying by the police and judiciary has not changed. Using this law to put people away destroying families. When will the CCRC act accordingly and ensure justice prevails in a lot of these cases that should have never been brought.
6 Priority Lists
All cases of injustice should be treated the same. As putting some above others means you are deciding who to give succour to first. Does every case not deserve equal attention? Injustice is an unfair act and by acting in this manner you are doing the same.
7. Deciding on evidence to go to appeal
How are you dictating what is sufficient to refer back to appeal? The nature of your implementation was to allow the appeal court to decide on the evidence whether it would stand. I think your actions created an abyss you are unable to rectify and I would like cases where doubt exists to be given to appeal judges if they have merit. As your level of doubt is put to high and as seen in the past cases come before you on more than one occasion.
Lizzie Donoghue HMP Bronzefield (Serving 30 year rec):
Dear Gloria
As always it’s great to hear from you, I hope you and your family are well. I’m not exactly sure if I understand fully what you need in the way of submission, however I always have something to say!
In most joint enterprise cases there is very little or no evidence that can be examined to prove one or many defendants innocence and for these reasons the CCRC does not present are realistic avenue for us maintaining our innocence to get justice. For example I was accused on mainly hearsay and flawed telephone evidence and I was convicted on the back of my co-defendant who was coerced into making a (false) statement by the police because of his mental health issues.
The judge at trial said to the jury “if you find defendant No. 1 not guilty then there is no case against defendant No. 2. However if you find defendant No. 1 guilty then you must consider the case against defendant No. 2.” All of us joint enterprise prisoners know too well that the hardest thing to do is to prove ones innocence when there was no real evidence in the first place, other than the prosecution being allowed to say “you knew”, “you know” or “you was there”!
I am back and forth with my solicitor at the moment mainly discussing the ballistics, as we desperately need a new ballistics examination carried out. So if you happen to know of any ballistics experts please feel free to pass my details onto them.
Please let me know if I am on the right track or if there is anything else I can do to help. Gloria please take care and thank you all so very much for your continued support your and all at JENGbA are the “Guardian Angels” of JE.
Steve Kidd HMP Gartree:
Ref: Submission for JSC (CCRC)
As a prisoner who has FINALLY had his case accepted for review by the CCRC I wish to add my experiences of them. This is my THIRD application to CCRC but this time it’s been prepared by me. I told it like it is not via legal jargon. I didn’t hold back re: joint enterprise, as to do so would be a failure, myself and ALL of us. Do I have confidence my NEW evidence is good enough? ABSOLUTELY.
Do I have confidence in the CCRC putting my miscarriage of justice right? NO.
The CCRC are not, and can NEVER be independent. They are Government backed and employ ex-police staff. I believe CCRC fear JOINT ENTERPRISE and potential precedent setting.
This is my last application to the CCRC. If they refuse to send my case back to Royal Court of Justice I’ll judicially review them, and release my case to the press.
Yours INNOCENT
Steve Kidd HMP Gartree.
Lee Roberts HMP Grendon
Der JENGbA
I have received your details from Mr Crilly at HMP Grendon who made me aware you were interested to hear from people who have had their cases reviewed by the CCRC. I’m not sure whether you wanted specifically joint enterprise cases or any case that has been dealt with by the CCRC.
At my first appeal the Appeal judges ordered that the CCRC investigate irregularities during my trial. My appeal was dismissed.
I lodged a separate application to the CCRC outlining other relevant facts and information, especially in regards to the second statement the victim made in my case, the victim saying there were things omitted from his statement. The Detective in the case DC. Harley interviewed Mr Wilson, the victim at his home and jotted everything down in his notebook. The victim did not sign the statement nor did they see a copy of it, until after the trial. I asked the CCRC to cross reference the statement with DC. Hartley’s notebook, which they have the power to do and would have provided new evidence.
When the case was concluded by the CCRC I was shocked because I thought what have they actually done? It seemed like they had just reviewed the paperwork, no re-interviewing of jury members after I provided them with evidence that a second jury member was disqualified from Jury duty. They said the appeal judges were aware of this fact.
They did not obtain DC Hartley’s notebook to cross reference the statement of Mr Wilson, which they had the power to do and would have provided fresh evidence.
A third fact which concerns me they make reference to Mr Wilson’s testimony in court, none of it made any sense because I could not remember any of it. I asked for a copy of the court transcript and they sent me the same paperwork stating they weren’t at liberty to disclose that information.
In one respect, I was so happy the CCRC were investigating the case because I believed they would obtain all the relevant facts, re-interview if necessary, but none of that was done. I felt like a statistic in regards to the CCRC putting down on paper they had reviewed the case.
I currently have the case before the Court of Human Rights in Strasburgh under Article 6 – the right to a fair trial.
I have submitted all the relevant paperwork for you to consider and would value your opinion and give you permission to do what you need to do with them. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Lee Roberts HMP Grendon
Elroy Otway HMP Long Lartin
Dear JENGbA
How are things? Fine I hope and also that you are in the best of health. I’m ok. Just cracking on as usual.
Right then don’t quite know what to put down about problems with the CCRC but I do have a few questions.
The first thing I’d like a straight answer to is are the CCRC independent or not? It’s no secret that police corruption exists and a lot of innocent people are in prison due to police stitch ups. Given that fact I think it’s irresponsible and inappropriate for the CCRC to have police taking part in our fight for justice, ie. Interviewing witnesses that weren’t willing to talk to police as part of the original investigation.
Also why is the criteria almost impossible to fit into? Fresh evidence or legal arguments are hard to come by after a trial and an appeal especially when you’re sitting in jail cell with no legal assistance due to legal aid cuts. If you’re innocent and can’t come up with nothing fresh you can’t even get the ball rolling.
For those of us convicted under joint enterprise law as secondary parties due to such non evident features as the assumption of shared intention, foresight, prior knowledge and knowing look. How can we come up with fresh evidence to dispute something when there was no evidence of it in the first place? In reality only the defendant knows what he was thinking or what he foresaw and there is no way of getting fresh evidence to suggest that.
An injustice is an injustice and those of us whose cases are blatant injustices shouldn’t be left to rot just because we can’t find fresh evidence. A review of the same evidence from an independent party that is non bias or corrupt may be just as effective.
Most joint enterprise convictions are not secured by evidence but rather the manipulation of evidence. ie. Phone calls from a person who then goes on to commit a crime is presented as the ‘go ahead’. Statements from witnesses are manipulated too and taken out of context to support the idea that more than one person is responsible.
So for me the CCRC is not what they claim to be and the bar is set too high. They are independent if they work with the police.
Hope what I’ve written is of some use!
Take care
Elroy Otway
Page 3 of 7