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Edward FitzGerald QC's arguments and request to seek clarification of legal points before the Law Lords, which has been replaced by the Supreme Court.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.
Flawed Reasoning The judges remained unmoved and were helped in their task by Parliament, having removed the corroboration requirement from other categories of evidence, such as accomplice testimony in sexual offences. That happened in 1994, yet the judges failed to point out that the admitted facts accepted that there was no indication that the murderer ejaculated at the crime-scene or was turned on by what he did and that affected Daley's credibility.
There was no evidence of a sexual motivation for the crimes apart from Daley claiming that Stone said he was turned on by the crimes and he would say that wouldn't he? It justified him viewing Stone as a scum-bag and nonce and that excused grassing, but why should it? The rest of the evidence against Stone was weak. Without Daley there was no case against him and actually it was even worse. This was why the police and criminal justice system needed Daley and his ilk.
Do Not Accept There was no scientific evidence against Stone despite the presence of 'foreign' DNA on items that the murderer had plainly touched and had been used in the murder. In other words Stone did not possess the relevant alleles and nor did the victims. There were also hairs on items that were connected with the crimes that did not belong to the victims or Stone.
The significance of the boot-lace and other items were sadly missed by virtually everyone, but that's another story. Nevertheless, Daley's 'detailed' account fails to deal with this, nor does it cause Daley, who had appointed himself Stone's judge and jury, and was allegedly a stickler for detail, any concern. Why not?
“The authorities do not require us to hold that the judge should have given an express warning about a potential motive for Daley to ingratiate himself with the authorities,” Rose said. “While repugnance for what had happened to the Russell family might provide a motive for setting up the defendant with a false allegation, it equally might provide a motive for an anti-authoritarian figure such as Daley to tell the police about a confession actually made.”
The appeal judges appear to have missed an obvious point. The crimes that Stone was accused of made it easy for the self-confessed perjurer to give his actions a noble interpretation. There remains no evidence whatsoever that conclusively proves Daley had told the truth. He had every reason to lie and as such the bar proving that he was telling the truth should have been set very high indeed. The appeal judges wasted the opportunity to establish much-needed safeguards. |