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.
“Evidence that he [Damien Daley] lied to a greater extent than was apparent at the time of the second trial, does not, in our judgment, significantly affect the quality of his evidence,” Rose said. “The jury was well aware that he was not only prepared to lie, but to do so on oath. The judge, on two occasions, reminded the jury of Daley's attitude to the truth. In those circumstances, the additional material showing addiction, in our judgment, added little of significance and certainly lacks such sufficient weight to affect the safety of the jury's conclusion that Daley was telling the truth about the confession.” They also decided that Mr Justice (Sir David) Poole's warning on the care they needed to apply to Daley's evidence was sufficient and concluded that the evidence suggested that this time the perjurer was telling the truth.
The Noble Perjurer “The circumstances surrounding this alleged confession, including the unexpected arrival of the appellant in the adjacent cell on the evening of the 23rd, Daley's disturbed state on the morning of the 24th, the test for audibility along the pipe, and the making of the detailed statement on the 26th, tended to support the veracity of Daley.”
Why? It is just as consistent with Daley seizing an unexpected opportunity to concoct a detailed alleged confession from facts that were already in the public domain, or easily deduced and act distressed. Daley was on any view a stranger to the truth, so why couldn't he have been feigning distress as well? He may have hated nonces – that applied to prisoners in general, but there was no evidence that Stone was one and that Daley's motives were as noble as he tried to make out – feeling bad for Josie Russell.
Permission to Grass? The judges were also impressed by Daley being upset and seemingly reacting to what he had allegedly heard from Stone. He could have been upset for other reasons, or simply acting, hardly difficult for an accomplished and experienced liar. Daley's reaction proved nothing and if he was so upset why didn't he come forward immediately? Daley had not made that statement for three days. His explanation for the delay was that he wanted his uncle's approval that he would not be grassing by giving it.
As an experienced prisoner, Daley would not have needed his uncle's permission. He would have known whether it was grassing or not. Of course it was. The real issue was whether it was justifiable in the circumstances of the crime and that depended on interpretation. Daley must have known that his conduct utterly breached the prisoners' golden rule, meaning that at least some, possibly most, other prisoners would judge him a grass and he knew it.
Crucially, the delay gave Daley more time to concoct his story and access to a further three days of press coverage with information that he could attribute to Stone, which could have made the account appear to contain information that had not been in the public domain at the time of the alleged confession. The fact that there was no evidence whatsoever that conclusively proved that Daley was telling the truth about Stone seems to have escaped the appeal judges' consideration. |