Why legal aid reforms must be stopped, Exhibit B: the "murderer"

Innocent people could be in jail if proposed changes to the legal system are implemented. Here is one of them.

In the previous post I told how a doting granddad ended up on a child pornography charge due to a combination of finger pointing and police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) inadequacies. Similar themes run through this story of Exhibit B, but the crime is more serious. This is another case that goes to show that not everyone who ends up in court is a scumbag criminal. It illustrates why everyone should be entitled to independent, quality, legal representation.

NB this is a true story. Certain details that don’t relate to the factual and legal process have been changed to protect those who were involved.

Used and unused evidence

I’ve mentioned the idea of used and unused evidence before. Lawyers get a fee for ”used evidence” based on page count. Unused evidence doesn’t attract any fee. The Crown decides what is “used” and “unused”. There were about 5000 pages of “used evidence” and over 20000 (yes, twenty thousand) pages of “unused evidence” in Exhibit B’s murder case. The kitchen table couldn’t accommodate all this. So the “unused evidence” was spread all over the living room floor, in ever shifting piles. For two weeks.

Quite often evidence arrives with the lawyer as if the CPS has thrown it all in the air, then gathered it up and put an elastic band around it. Before my husband could start to read these 20000 pages he had to put them in some semblance of order. Once he’d got it in order he started to read it. But you can’t read it in order, like you read a novel. There is no beginning middle and end, well, not at this point there isn’t. The lawyer has to find them out. So he kept going backwards and forwards, from one pile to another and back again.

This investigation had been rumbling on for a few years. When the murder was still fresh, years before the papers landed in my living room, an appeal had gone out on Crimewatch. It featured in local and national news etc. There was a reconstruction and an artist’s impression of the suspect based on a description given by an eye witness. There was a lot of interest.  As well as the “unused evidence” my husband also got hold of a copy of the Crimewatch episode, and a heap of press cuttings.

My husband took two weeks out of court to go through all of this material. Remember that they don’t get paid for “unused evidence”. Two weeks earning nothing. But it had to be done, so he would know all there was to know about this case, and could act in the best interest of his client.

Golden nugget

Ten days after the living room was first flooded with paper, my husband had a eureka moment. He came across a golden nugget, one piece of A4 paper that made sense. It was the notes of the artist who had created the impression of the suspect. The image that had been broadcast around the country. The image had a prominent facial feature and the artist had used shading to indicate this. The notes clarified what the shading was supposed to indicate, and what it was not supposed to indicate.  The police report, and all the subsequent media reports had got this detail the wrong way round.

A fork in the road

So pretty much as soon as the investigation started, unbeknownst to the police, it reached a fork in the road. One probably quite junior officer got the detail about the impression the wrong way round, reported it up the chain and the investigation went off down the wrong fork.

Reading the “unused” material my husband could see there was clear evidence, forensic evidence, that could have got the police back on the right track and even pointed towards the real murderer. The twenty thousand pages started to make sense. But because the police had been fixated on this one detail, the detail that they’d got round the wrong way, they kept pushing all the other evidence aside. This early mistake was perpetuated all the way to trial.

His day in court

After over 12 months in prison on remand, Exhibit B’s case came to court. The prosecution opened their case, repeating the mistake that the police had made right at the beginning, all those years before. This mistake was only corrected when the eye witness took the stand and gave his evidence to the jury. Needless to say there were gasps and red faces all around the courtroom.

There were many other things that went wrong or got missed in the investigation of this crime. But the detail about the artists’ impression had created a domino effect concerning the other evidence.

After four weeks the judge stopped the trial. He directed the jury to find Exhibit B not guilty, and gave them six different reasons why it was absolutely impossible for him to have been the murderer. After nearly two years of hell Exhibit B walked free.

Why this story should matter to you

  1. Police & CPS procedure – it is clear that the officer in charge of the case had not done what my husband had done, and sat down and read everything. Evidence is collated and summarised in reports, which are passed up and up through the police rank structure. By the time it gets to the top it is a case of “Chinese whispers”. What the top guy reads is not always an accurate reflection of the evidence.
  2. Performance targets – it is unrealistic to expect the police and prosecution to read all of the evidence in every case under the current system. It certainly won’t be possible, even for the defence, under the proposed system. The allocated defence lawyer will be working to targets, working for profit. He won’t have the time to take two weeks out to find the golden nugget. He’ll take a quick look at the evidence, see that it looks pretty damning, and advise the client to plead guilty.
  3. The real scumbag criminal got away with it – as far as we know the real murderer is still at large. The proposed system will lead to more of this. Because if lawyers are to be paid the same whether clients go to trial or not, there will be fewer trials. Fewer trials means less opportunity for upcoming solicitors and barristers to cut their teeth. Less practice on the more simple cases will lead to less proficiency on the complex ones. This will hold for both the defence AND the prosecution. The end result more innocent people going to prison, more guilty people getting away, quite literally, with murder.
  4. It could happen to you – Exhibit B got picked up for this because he had happened to be in the right place at the wrong time. The Crown’s own evidence showed he could not have been at the murder scene at the right time. He served over a year in prison on remand waiting for trial for something he didn’t do. I’ll spare you the details of what happened to him while he was there. And even though he was found not guilty, mud sticks. He was a young man, just starting out. His life was ruined.
  5. Innocence is not interesting – there was a journalist in court for Exhibit B’s trial. Every day there were articles in the local and national papers saying what a nasty piece of work he was. Once the case was thrown out my husband collared the journalist and demanded that he write the story up, listing the points as the judge had directed the jury. Guess what? He didn’t do it. No wonder the public always believe people are guilty until proven innocent.

Help save our justice system

As things stand the proposed changes to the criminal justice system are going to be brought in under secondary legislation, without any debate. If it comes to pass, in future young men like Exhibit B will be fed to the wolves.

The Save UK Justice e-petition needs 100 000 people to sign it in order for there to be a debate in parliament. If you have not already signed the petition please do so.

Our next scumbag criminal will be Exhibit C – the “paedophile”.

This piece is part of a series of posts exhibiting people at risk due to legal aid changes. It is cross-posted with permission from the A Barrister's Wife blog.

The Crimewatch logo

Barrister's Wife is a barrister's wife. She writes a pseudonymous blog which offers a behind closed doors view of the justice system.

Getty
Show Hide image

David Osland: “Corbyn is actually Labour’s only chance”

The veteran Labour activist on the release of his new pamphlet, How to Select or Reselect Your MP, which lays out the current Labour party rules for reselecting an MP.

Veteran left-wing Labour activist David Osland, a member of the national committee of the Labour Representation Committee and a former news editor of left magazine Tribune, has written a pamphlet intended for Labour members, explaining how the process of selecting Labour MPs works.

Published by Spokesman Books next week (advance copies are available at Nottingham’s Five Leaves bookshop), the short guide, entitled “How to Select or Reselect Your MP”, is entertaining and well-written, and its introduction, which goes into reasoning for selecting a new MP and some strategy, as well as its historical appendix, make it interesting reading even for those who are not members of the Labour party. Although I am a constituency Labour party secretary (writing here in an expressly personal capacity), I am still learning the Party’s complex rulebook; I passed this new guide to a local rules-boffin member, who is an avowed Owen Smith supporter, to evaluate whether its description of procedures is accurate. “It’s actually quite a useful pamphlet,” he said, although he had a few minor quibbles.

Osland, who calls himself a “strong, but not uncritical” Corbyn supporter, carefully admonishes readers not to embark on a campaign of mass deselections, but to get involved and active in their local branches, and to think carefully about Labour’s election fortunes; safe seats might be better candidates for a reselection campaign than Labour marginals. After a weak performance by Owen Smith in last night’s Glasgow debate and a call for Jeremy Corbyn to toughen up against opponents by ex Norwich MP Ian Gibson, an old ally, this pamphlet – named after a 1981 work by ex-Tribune editor Chris Mullin, who would later go on to be a junior minister under Blai – seems incredibly timely.

I spoke to Osland on the telephone yesterday.

Why did you decide to put this pamphlet together now?

I think it’s certainly an idea that’s circulating in the Labour left, after the experience with Corbyn as leader, and the reaction of the right. It’s a debate that people have hinted at; people like Rhea Wolfson have said that we need to be having a conversation about it, and I’d like to kickstart that conversation here.

For me personally it’s been a lifelong fascination – I was politically formed in the early Eighties, when mandatory reselection was Bennite orthodoxy and I’ve never personally altered my belief in that. I accept that the situation has changed, so what the Labour left is calling for at the moment, so I see this as a sensible contribution to the debate.

I wonder why selection and reselection are such an important focus? One could ask, isn’t it better to meet with sitting MPs and see if one can persuade them?

I’m not calling for the “deselect this person, deselect that person” rhetoric that you sometimes see on Twitter; you shouldn’t deselect an MP purely because they disagree with Corbyn, in a fair-minded way, but it’s fair to ask what are guys who are found to be be beating their wives or crossing picket lines doing sitting as our MPs? Where Labour MPs publicly have threatened to leave the party, as some have been doing, perhaps they don’t value their Labour involvement.

So to you it’s very much not a broad tool, but a tool to be used a specific way, such as when an MP has engaged in misconduct?

I think you do have to take it case by case. It would be silly to deselect the lot, as some people argue.

In terms of bringing the party to the left, or reforming party democracy, what role do you think reselection plays?

It’s a basic matter of accountability, isn’t it? People are standing as Labour candidates – they should have the confidence and backing of their constituency parties.

Do you think what it means to be a Labour member has changed since Corbyn?

Of course the Labour party has changed in the past year, as anyone who was around in the Blair, Brown, Miliband era will tell you. It’s a completely transformed party.

Will there be a strong reaction to the release of this pamphlet from Corbyn’s opponents?

Because the main aim is to set out the rules as they stand, I don’t see how there can be – if you want to use the rules, this is how to go about it. I explicitly spelled out that it’s a level playing field – if your Corbyn supporting MP doesn’t meet the expectations of the constituency party, then she or he is just as subject to a challenge.

What do you think of the new spate of suspensions and exclusions of some people who have just joined the party, and of other people, including Ronnie Draper, the General Secretary of the Bakers’ Union, who have been around for many years?

It’s clear that the Labour party machinery is playing hardball in this election, right from the start, with the freeze date and in the way they set up the registered supporters scheme, with the £25 buy in – they’re doing everything they can to influence this election unfairly. Whether they will succeed is an open question – they will if they can get away with it.

I’ve been seeing comments on social media from people who seem quite disheartened on the Corbyn side, who feel that there’s a chance that Smith might win through a war of attrition.

Looks like a Corbyn win to me, but the gerrymandering is so extensive that a Smith win isn’t ruled out.

You’ve been in the party for quite a few years, do you think there are echoes of past events, like the push for Bennite candidates and the takeover from Foot by Kinnock?

I was around last time – it was dirty and nasty at times. Despite the narrative being put out by the Labour right that it was all about Militant bully boys and intimidation by the left, my experience as a young Bennite in Tower Hamlets Labour Party, a very old traditional right wing Labour party, the intimidation was going the other way. It was an ugly time – physical threats, people shaping up to each other at meetings. It was nasty. Its nasty in a different way now, in a social media way. Can you compare the two? Some foul things happened in that time – perhaps worse in terms of physical intimidation – but you didn’t have the social media.

There are people who say the Labour Party is poised for a split – here in Plymouth (where we don’t have a Labour MP), I’m seeing comments from both sides that emphasise that after this leadership election we need to unite to fight the Tories. What do you think will happen?

I really hope a split can be avoided, but we’re a long way down the road towards a split. The sheer extent of the bad blood – the fact that the right have been openly talking about it – a number of newspaper articles about them lining up backing from wealthy donors, operating separately as a parliamentary group, then they pretend that butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths, and that they’re not talking about a split. Of course they are. Can we stop the kamikazes from doing what they’re plotting to do? I don’t know, I hope so.

How would we stop them?

We can’t, can we? If they have the financial backing, if they lose this leadership contest, there’s no doubt that some will try. I’m old enough to remember the launch of the SDP, let’s not rule it out happening again.

We’ve talked mostly about the membership. But is Corbynism a strategy to win elections?

With the new electoral registration rules already introduced, the coming boundary changes, and the loss of Scotland thanks to decades of New Labour neglect, it will be uphill struggle for Labour to win in 2020 or whenever the next election is, under any leadership.

I still think Corbyn is Labour’s best chance. Any form of continuity leadership from the past would see the Midlands and north fall to Ukip in the same way Scotland fell to the SNP. Corbyn is actually Labour’s only chance.

Margaret Corvid is a writer, activist and professional dominatrix living in the south west.