|
Cell Confessions
Unfair The late Mr Justice (Sir David) Poole was responsible for ensuring that Michael Stone received a fair trial for the July 1996 attempted murder of the courageous Josie Russell and murders of her mother Dr Lin Russell and younger sister Megan at the second attempt. The prosecution depended on the credibility of a prison informer, Damien Daley, who claimed that Stone had confessed to him in Canterbury Prison in September 1997. The conversation according to Daley occurred through the heating pipe between the adjoining cells in the segregation block.
“The evidence of the main prosecution witness Damien Daley should not be dismissed just because he is a self-confessed liar,” Poole told the jury. They didn't. On October 4th 2001 Stone was convicted for the second time. Leave to appeal was granted two and a half years later by Mr Justice (Sir Colman) Treacy on the grounds that Daley's inherent unreliability deprived Stone of a fair trial.
However, in January 2005 Stone's appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal, headed by the then Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice (Sir Christopher) Rose. Mr Justices (Sir Alan) Moses and (Sir Robert) Walker agreed with Rose, but the judgement was absurd as there were numerous indicators that Daley could not be relied on; either the jury was wrong, or new evidence showed that he was even more unreliable than they had heard, or both. None of that mattered to those appeal judges.
|
|
|
|
The Fabrication Blueprint |
|
|
|
| Cell Confession Blueprint Despite being aware of the inherent dangers of cell confessions, the Court of Appeal, headed by the then Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice (Sir Christopher) Rose turned down Michael Stone's appeal against his convictions for the July 1996 murders of Lin and Megan Russell and attempted murder of Josie Russell. The judgement delivered in January 2005 was agreed to by Mr Justices (Sir Alan) Moses and (Sir Robert) Walker.
The judges concluded that the self-confessed liar, habitual criminal, heroin addict and perjurer, Damien Daley, had told the truth about Stone's alleged confession to him through heating pipe between the adjoining cells in the segregation area of Canterbury Prison. It was, in short, a blueprint on how to fabricate a cell confession and have it maintained by Court of Criminal Appeal judges.
|
Dangerous Outcome Damien Daley is a self-confessed perjurer. He is also a grass and such witnesses should be subject to a strict corroboration requirement, but the Court of Criminal Appeal gave his ilk the green light to continue to concoct cell confessions during Michael Stone's appeal in 2005. The judges responsible for this blueprint are Sir Christopher Rose, Sir Alan Moses and Baron Robert Walker of Gestingthorpe by rejecting Edward FitzGerald QC's arguments and request to seek clarification of legal points before the Law Lords, which has been replaced by the Supreme Court. Baron Walker is a Supreme Court Judge now.
“Mr Fitzgerald asserted that, in cases of cell confessions, there is a general duty to give a special direction, analogous to the duty in cases of disputed identifications,” said Rose. “This arises primarily from the risk that the evidence is tainted by an improper motive. Mr Fitzgerald observed that in Benedetto, at paragraph 32, the Privy Council categorised the evidence of a prison informer as 'inherently unreliable.'” The judges had a point as the requirement had indeed been abolished for some categories of evidence and cell confessions were never included in the categories requiring it by law. However, it was well known that it contributed to several miscarriages of justice and required careful consideration or better still abolition at least of any benefits from informing.
|
Warnings Michael Stone's case was always going to be controversial. His conviction at the retrial in Nottingham in October 2001 depended almost entirely on the reliability of self-confessed perjurer Damien Daley. The trial judge, Mr Justice (Sir David) Poole, had to strike a balance between competing interests. Nigel Sweeney QC, prosecuting, had chosen to present Daley as a witness who could be relied on this time while then defence QC, William Clegg, begged to differ.
Daley's character was no so much bad, as appalling. Cell confessions were notoriously unreliable and regardless of the opinion of judges in this case, it was easy to concoct if the informer had access to the right information. Daley's statement made three days after the alleged confession was given by Stone contained considerable detail, but so what? A detailed account could still be fabricated, especially in these circumstances. Daley had access to information and three days to prepare it. He had opportunity and the potential to benefit greatly from framing Stone. Meanwhile, Poole summarised Daley's bad character, but undermined that by saying that such witnesses could still tell the truth, just as good character does not guarantee that the truth will be told.
|
Continuing Injustice Michael Stone has not had a fair trial and it should have been obvious that he could not have one. He was convicted at his first trial in October 1998 by majority verdict of the murders of Dr Lin Russell and her daughter Megan as well as the attempted murder of her elder daughter Josie. Stone has an extensive criminal record, including an attack with a hammer and mental health problems too.
The appalling attack on the Russell family occurred on July 9th 1996. Stone was arrested a year later and was sentenced to life imprisonment by Mr Justice (Sir Ian) Kennedy. An appeal succeeded in February 2001, but a retrial was ordered before Mr Justice (Sir David) Poole. It began in Nottingham in September 2001, ending in conviction again by majority verdict on October 4th.
In February 2004 new lawyers asked Mr Justice (Sir Colman) Treacy if Stone could appeal the convictions because the 'inherent unreliability' of the prosecution's star witness, Damien Daley, had prejudiced Stone's right to a fair trial. Permission was granted, but in January 2005, the Court of Appeal, headed by the then Vice-President of the Court of Criminal Appeal, Lord Justice (Sir Christopher) Rose, sitting with then Mr Justices (Sir Alan) Moses and (Sir Robert) Walker dismissed the appeal in controversial circumstances.
|
A Sad History Many of the major miscarriages of justice had featured cell confessions. Mervin 'Tex' Ritter was just one of many prisoners who lied through his teeth to frame an innocent man. After eighteen years of wrongful imprisonment Jimmy Robinson, the late Pat Molloy, Michael Hickey and Vincent Hickey were cleared on appeal of the September 1978 murder of teenage newspaper-boy, Carl Bridgewater. Ritter's lies went unpunished.
Wales' longest serving victims of a miscarriage of justice, the Newsagent's Three (Darren Hall, Michael O'Brien and Ellis Sherwood), have good reason to distrust such evidence, as their case involved alleged cell confessions too. It was not the most important evidence against Sherwood and O'Brien, but bolstered the case against them. They were not alone. In legal terms, at the time, Tony Paris could not have been convicted of the murder of Lynette White without the evidence of Ian Massey that Paris had allegedly confessed to him. There were almost too many to count in the Damilola Taylor Inquiry, one at least, resulting in total incredulity from the trial judge.
|
Difficulties Despite a long and sad history of miscarriages of justice due to cell confessions and people of bad character using and abusing the criminal justice system in the manner observed by the eminent British jurist, Sir Matthew Hale over three and a half centuries ago, unscrupulous criminals continue to be allowed to take advantage without consequences. Michael Stone's case is an excellent example of this.
Following his second conviction for the murders of Lin and Megan Russell and attempted murder of Josie Russell, Stone dismissed his lawyers, hiring the experienced QC, Edward FitzGerald, but his team were at a disadvantage. Having taken over from William Clegg QC, FitzGerald knew that he would not get a second bite of the cherry on appeal and that criticism of Clegg was likely to be counter-productive. Appeal judges hate such appeals, especially if it involves criticism, even implied ones, of judges, but had the law been completely satisfied, and if so, was it inadequate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
Like Fitted In?
|