The case descriptions below are taken from Michael O'Brien's book The Dossier
available from Amazon
The Darvell Brothers
On Friday 14th June 1985, Sandra Phillips the manageress of a sex shop in Swansea’s Dillwyn Street, was found battered to death in a pool of blood. A year later, on 19th of June 1986, brothers Paul and Wayne Darvell, were convicted of her murder following an eight-week trial. They were sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommendation that Paul serve at least twenty years, and Wayne Fifteen.
The investigation was headed by Don Carsley. During interviews, Wayne Darvell made admissions that he was responsible for the murder. There was however, extensive evidence to suggest that he was borderline educationally subnormal with a personality disorder and also that he was highly suggestable.
The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions after the brothers served seven years in Prison. In doing so, the police were severely censured for serious misconduct, particularly in four areas. First, that the interviews with Wayne Darvell were recorded in a notebook completed, purportedly, immediately following the interview, but which in fact not issued until two months later.
Secondly, Electrostatic Detection Apparatus evidence revealed that an officer's statement containing a record of an interview had been rewritten with different content.
In some cases, the differences between the final versions and earlier versions involved the conversion of a leading question followed by a simple assent into a non-leading question followed by an informative answer. A central plank of the prosecution case in relation to the confession was that it contained information that could not have been known to a person not involved in the murder.
Thirdly, a partial palm print found in blood near to the deceased’s body and was examined by fingerprint experts who concluded that it could not have been made by either of the accused brothers. The account given in the confession was that the two brothers were alone at the scene. The findings of the fingerprint experts were made 17 and 18 of June 1985.
At this time, a senior officer gave instructions to the fingerprint experts to cancel arrangements to enhance the print and to cease work comparison of the print with other suspects. The findings in relation to the palm print were not disclosed to the defence and all that was put to the jury was there was there were insufficient characteristics found to make a positive identification and that the print did not implicate either of the accused brothers.
Fourthly, there was no forensic evidence linking the accused to the scene of the crime except for an earring similar to the one worn by the deceased that was found in the police car in which Wayne Darvell was transported to the police station. However, this find was suspicious in that it was made by an officer who was unable to give any reason why he chose to search the car five days later and did not take any photographs of the earring in the location in which it was said to be found. A statement subjected to ESDA testing was found to have had alterations made in relation to the car in which the earring was found.
The Court of Appeal concluded that “the catalogue of criticisms and exposures which we have set out and the fresh evidence which supports them constitutes a formidable and overwhelming case for allowing the appeals… this has been a thoroughly disquieting case and there remains serious matters for investigation and remedy … it is right that we should express deep regret on behalf of the Court and of the public to the appellants for the ordeal they have undergone”. It is extremely unusual for the Court of Appeal to use such language when quashing a conviction.The appeal was based largely on evidence gathered by Devon and Cornwall police, who were asked to investigate the convictions following submissions to the Home Office by Justice the law reform body and the BBC’S Rough Justice programme.
Outside the court in 1992, the men were reunited with their two other brothers, Robert and Derek. Wayne Darvell said he held no grudges against anyone: ‘We have been waiting for this moment for a very long long time I am very pleased it has come at last. I would like to thank everyone who has stood by us family, friends and lawyers.”
Paul Darvell, who went bald during his time in prison, added: “It’s great to be free. We can’t wait to get home. I lost my hair through all the stress. I just want to have a pint of shandy. It’s been a long time.
In a statement issued at the time when they were cleared in 1992 Robert Lawrence, the Chief Constable of South Wales Police said he deeply regretted the wrongful convictions. The murder inquiry would be reopened.
The case of Sandra Phillips remains with the Miscarriages of Justice unit set up to investigate ‘these legacy cases’ as South Wales Police calls them is still unsolved. It has been nearly twenty-nine years since the actual murder was committed yet the guilty party is still free, with no justice for the brothers or for the victim’s family. The case needs to form part of a judicial inquiry looking at what went wrong and an outside force should be brought in to re investigate the murder case. Sadly, Paul and Wayne Darvell will never see justice they deserved, as both have passed away.
The Welsh Conspiracy Trial
This landmark case received significant media attention due to the serious nature of the offences which were carried out.
English holiday homes, one owned by a prominent Conservative Government were targeted by a group calling themselves The Free Wales Army (FWA). This paramilitary Welsh nationalist organisation, which had adopted the motto ‘Fe godwn ni eto’ or ‘We will rise again’, was formed in 1963 with the objective of establishing an independent Welsh Republic. its militant actions sent shock waves through the British establishment.
A few homes in Wales, thought to belong to English people, were destroyed or damaged by bombs. Pressure was brought to bear on the police to catch those responsible. At the heart of the investigation was Detective Sergeant Stuart Lewis.
A huge manhunt was launched which resulted in the arrest of nine men: Adrian Stone; Dafydd Ladd; Gareth Westacott; David Burns; Brian Rees; Nicolas Hodges; Dafydd John Burns; Robert Griffiths; John Bernard Jenkins. And one woman: Jennifer Smith.
The case against the ten accused centred mostly on verbal admissions and cell confessions “overheard” by Lewis, plus innuendo, admissions allegedly made by the defendants’ during interviews, and the fact that the defendants were Welsh nationalists.
This is what Adrian Stone recalls from the trial in his own words:
“In 1982 I was arrested and charged and became known as one of the defendants in the Cardiff Explosives conspiracy trial. I stood trial jointly with Robert Griffiths, Nicolas Hodges, and David Burns. I was charged with possession of explosives (potassium chlorate and hexamine) and with conspiracy to cause explosions in relation to the planting of thirteen separate bombings incidents involving explosives planted in Cardiff, Birmingham, Stratford, Pontypridd and London. Six of the bombings on the indictment were incidents which the Workers Army of the Welsh Republic has claimed responsibility for. Only one of the 13 bombings (seventh one on the indictment) was Tai Haf – the bombing of the Welsh holiday home for which the Workers Army of the Welsh Republic had not claimed responsibility for. I was then a member of Plaid Cymru and an activist with the Welsh Socialist Republican Movement (WSRM) which was a Welsh Nationalist party that did not use violence to further its political ends. I had no contact with The Workers Army of the Welsh Republic. The prosecution case against me was admissions I allegedly made in police interviews, potassium chlorate allegedly found in my bedroom and admissions my co-defendant Nick Hodges made in police custody.
“I was arrested just before 7am in April 1982 then officer DS Lewis came to my home. “I was taken to Bridgend police station in a police car. A police officer called Alan Mead was driving and a Detective Inspector Gordon Smith was in the front passenger seat whilst Stuart Lewis sat in the back-passenger seat with me. I later got to know these officers very well, as they interviewed me at the police station.
“During the journey in the police car, many questions were put to me about the explosive charges and bombings. The prosecution evidence in the case did not include the questioning that was put to me in the police vehicle and instead is included an account of conversations in the car which did not actually take place and was totally false. When I arrived in the police station my solicitor, Rhidian Davies, was not allowed to see me on the grounds that he would interfere with justice. The first time I received any legal advice after my arrest was 36 hours later, before I was brought before Caerphilly magistrates’ court."
“At the police station I was interviewed by Detective Inspector Smith, who did most of the talking, Lewis was also there and Alan Mead took notes during the interview, these were later presented as if they were contemporaneous notes, but in fact they were not a true account of the interviews and included things supposedly said by me which I never said and which were fabricated by the police. The interviews were largely fabricated with a few quotes. During that first interview I was threatened with violence by Officer Smith and Lewis if I did not cooperate. Lewis said something to the effect that I would be taken down the cells and given a kicking. I also remember that he said ‘you’re going to get some welly’. I remember that I repeated this at the trial and the judge said he’d never heard that phrase before.
The police questioned me asking for information about people I knew who were political activists. I freely admitted membership of Plaid Cymru but I did not give information about others nor did I make any incriminating admissions relating to the bombing conspiracy charges.
I gave evidence at trial that the incriminating comments included in the interviews were not made by me and were fabricated for example the interview record had me making a number of ridiculous comments such as:
‘I agree with direct action against anything or anybody who is opposed to the aims of our political beliefs. I believe in the overthrow of a democratic society by force to establish a free Welsh Socialist Republic the Republic similar to the French and United States. I hate fascism in all its forms. The National Front should be destroyed.’ I did not make those comments or anything resembling them and I challenged them in court.
“A clear indication that the notes which were supposed to be contemporaneous had in fact been written later is shown in the following detail. The police spoke to me about a woman called Amanda Singer who was a former girlfriend of mine but who the police referred to as my girlfriend. I knew her by her nickname of Dee but I had never told them that. She was brought in later in the afternoon and I called her Dee then however, in the falsified interview record of Detective Inspector Smith refers to her as Dee right at the beginning of the interview that morning. According to the interview record I gave the police the names of a number of people who shared my political views including Tim Richards, Annie Powell, Nick Hodges, David Burns and Gareth Westacott. That is untrue, I did not name any of these people during my interviews. Some of them later stood trial with me. I can only assume that the police included this in the interview record to try and link us together."
“During the interviews I was asked about a number of people who are members WRSM, including the Chairman, Tim Richards, Robert Griffith, Gareth Miles and others. During the interviews they also asked me about Dafydd Elis-Thomas who was then chairman of Plaid Cymru and was a Member of Parliament. He was until a few years ago the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales. Officer Gordon Smith referred to Elis-Thomas as a mick and red lover and said that if Elis Thomas wasn’t the brains behind the bombing conspiracy, then he must know who was."
“Sergeant Stuart Lewis also offered me £10,000 if I was prepared to make a statement saying that Dafydd Elis-Thomas was involved in the campaign and knew who the leaders were. Officer Mead and Smith were present when this conversation took place however this conversation was not recorded in writing. Stuart Lewis also said that if I knew anything about Elis-Thomas, I should say it now and the police could take care of me. I remember he said something like, if I was scared of anyone I could be look after and they could take care of my family and move me away. I spurned all these inducements because to say Dafydd Elis-Thomas was involved was simply not true. At the trial I gave evidence before the jury about the police offering me £10,000 to implicate Dafydd Elis-Thomas. I have now known Dafydd Elis-Thomas for nearly twenty years and I know that he is not and has never been connected with any form of political violence.
“The officers asked me questions about my knowledge of chemistry. I had studied chemistry but I did not finish the course. I refused to answer the questions they asked and the answers they attribute to me in the interview record are not true and were never said by me.
I did not say that I knew how to make a bomb or that I had made a dummy bomb when I was in the territorial army, I did say that whilst I was in the TA I had taken part in an exercise where we had to pretend to plant a bomb. I did not say that I had extensive notes from my student days about how to make explosives. I had extensive notes from my chemistry course but not in relation to explosives. I did say that I knew about the process of Nitration but in the interview record this is taken out of context. Nitration is a process often used in chemistry and I had said that I had used it in making a dye. I did not say in interview that I had joined the territorial army to acquire the military knowledge to enable me to be a soldier for Wales. I also did not ever say I believed in the use of violence to achieve political aims. Officers did put comments by Amanda Smith saying I had told her that I support the use of guns and bombs.
“Amanda Smith later told other members of Plaid Cymru that she had made this up as a result of pressure by the police. She was never called as a prosecution witness at the trial. Nicolas Hodges gave a statement to the police that I had approached him asking for nitric acid. I can confirm that I certainly never approached him to ask for nitric acid and he never gave me any nitric acid. He made up this statement under pressure from the police. This matter was not put to me in any interviews at all. According to the interview record, I said that I was a Member of WAWR and that I agreed with 90% of a document that was read out to me. This was completely untrue. I did not talk about my political views at all to the police nor did I ever say I was a member of the WAWR. I did not say that people had asked me for advice on how to make bombs and that I had advised them. This evidence was total police fabrication (Lies)."
“During the police interviews I was moved upstairs because of a demonstration that my friends were holding outside the police station. After we had gone upstairs two officers came into the interview room with a man who officer Smith referred to as Sir. It became clear that they were from special branch and M15. They asked me questions about a number of political groups neither their presence nor questions were included in the interview record produced by the prosecution let alone used at trial."
“I was charged with having in my possession the following substances: batteries, a pencil torch, a torch bulb, Cotton wool, a length of wire, a roll of black tape, two switches, the small length of black and blue insulation tape, some hexamine and 0.3g of potassium chlorate. I explained all these items, apart from the last two, were ordinary household items, which might be found in any home. The hexamine was fire lighter, which I had been given whilst in the territorial army to use with a camping stove. The potassium chlorate, which can be used to make explosives, had been planted by the police who claimed that they found it in a small goblet on the dressing table at the foot of my bed."
“On the morning of my second day of my arrest 30th April 1982, I was questioned again by Detective Inspector Smith, with Sergeant Stuart Lewis present and DC Alan Mead taking notes. During that interview, which began at 10.25am, Detective Inspector Smith said to me, ‘I understand that traces of chlorate have been found in your bedroom. Chlorate is a weed killer and it has been positively identified by forensics.’ In fact, it later emerged that at that time on the day forensics had not even carried out any tests to identify the substance. This supported my claim that this substance was planted in my bedroom as otherwise Detective Inspector Smith would not have known at the time what the material was. How could he? Dr. John Bassett, Scientific Officer at the Home office Forensic Laboratory at Chepstow said in cross-examination at the trial that he had received the substance for examination on the Thursday 29th April 1982. He said he did not begin analysing it until the following morning and this process would have taken 4 to 5 hours. He could not recall precisely when he informed the police of his findings; it could have been that Friday afternoon or the following Monday."
“The interview during which chlorate was named by Detective Inspector Smith, began at 10.25am on the Friday morning 30th April 1982. Dr. Bassett also said he would never have referred to the substance as chlorate but would have specified it was potassium chlorate.
Potassium chlorate is not a weed killer; sodium chlorate (which is also used to make explosives) is the main component of many weed killers. It seems that Detective Inspector Smith, during the interview on Friday 30th April, believed that the material was sodium chlorate, which he referred to as a weed killer."
“Furthermore, none of the explosive devices for which I was charged had potassium chlorate used in them. It seems that the police planted potassium chlorate, thinking it to be sodium chlorate. Potassium chlorate is a very difficult substance to get hold of and is used in the manufacturing process of mouthwashes. It is virtually impossible to buy it through retail outlets, as my defence lawyers at the trial made many enquiries to try to find out where it could have come from and drew a blank. At the time the only place in Wales where potassium chlorate was stored was the forensic science laboratory at Chepstow which was used by the police. This was established at my trial when it was put to the forensic officer who agreed. Detective Inspector Smith also revealed in cross-examination that he had been to the forensic laboratory in Chepstow the day before my arrest. The crystal structure of the potassium chlorate sample found meant that I could not have made it myself as the purity was in excess of 99.5% and had I made such a sample myself there would have been traces of water molecules in the sample. A sample of that purity must have come from a laboratory."
“I was questioned about a fire in the chimney of my bedroom. The prosecution forensic experts later established that the fire in my chimney was not due to explosives, petrol or anything that could be associated with a bombing campaign and was therefore just an ordinary chimney fire. According to the interview record I refused to give an explanation about the chimney fire but in fact in interview I explained it was just an ordinary chimney fire.
At various points during the interviews Stuart Lewis asked me if I was homosexual. I am not and he touched me on the knee. I remember him saying that quiet boys like me need to be looked after, especially in prison and Smith laughed and agreed with him. They also said that I would have to go on 43 which I later found out was being on rule 43 which means being in a segregated area of the prison isolated for my own protection. I believe this was a threat to frighten me."
“During the interviews Lewis told me that Amanda Singer was in tears, that I had got her into trouble and that if I was any type of man would agree to make a statement to the police and they would then release her. She had been arrested that morning. I was told that people were getting into trouble because of me and that if I made a statement everything would be all right. Smith and Lewis also said to me that if I made a statement they would look after me, that I wouldn’t get into trouble and I might even get probation. Lewis was making comments like, ‘be a man, make a statement, it will help you clear your conscience’. He was constantly implying that they knew I’d done it but if I admitted they would help me get out of trouble. It was bizarre the way he referred to me as homosexual and then kept referring to my girlfriend.
“Smith took more of ‘hard man’ role, saying that I was going to go to prison for life and I would never see the outside if I didn’t do what they told me. Obviously, none of this was included in the interview record. After 36 hours in detention, I was brought before Caerphilly magistrates court which was the first time that I saw my solicitor Rhidian Davies. I told him what had been happening to me in the police station. He told me that the police were going to object my bail. He represented me at the bail hearing and he also asked in court if I had made any admissions or confessions and Davies left it at that. Later it became the prosecution case that I had made numerous admissions in interview.
“At the criminal trial, when I complained about my treatment at the police station, Superintendent Hill and Stuart Lewis gave evidence that Rhidian Davies had said to them that at the court (not in evidence before the magistrate but simply in ordinary conversation) that I had no complaints about the way that the police had treated me. This was completely false. Rhidian Davies gave evidence at the trial that he had said no such thing.
“I was remanded in custody and refused bail and ended up spending six months in prison on remand until the trial. During my time on remand, I was placed in a shared cell with a man called Robert Parfitt, who claimed that he was in prison for burglary. On many occasions he questioned me about my alleged involvement in the explosives conspiracy. I always told him that I was not involved. I found out that he had also been placed in a cell with David Burns and Nick Hodges and Brian Rees. Clearly, he had been placed in cells with us as a police informer and we later discovered that he had not been charged with burglary but with incest and rape of his children. He made statements to the police that he had heard us admitting our guilt in the cells and these were served at court and shown to the judge but were withdrawn at the last minute. I believe that the police were trying to use him to strengthen the prosecution case against us and must have colluded with the prison authorities to do this."
“At the trial I challenged all the admissions in the interview record and stated that I had not made any of these and that they were fabricated by the police. I also alleged that the potassium chlorate had been planted by the police. I was cross-examined at length by the barrister for the prosecution. I was acquitted by the jury of all the charges. Clearly the jury must have accepted that the police had fabricated the admissions in my interviews and had planted the potassium chlorate in my bedroom. Otherwise, they would not have acquitted me.”
For more testimonies from the men involved, see 'The Dossier'.
Jonathan Jones
Jonathan Jones was convicted of the murders of his fiancée’s elderly parents, Harry and Megan Tooze in 1995 even though by the end of his trial the prosecution accepted that it could not attribute any particular motive to him for the killings.There was no evidence that he had anything other than a good relationship with the deceased. He had no previous convictions.
Both Harry and Megan Tooze had been shot in the head from a distance of about 3 feet. There was no forensic evidence against Mr Jones despite scientific opinion that the killer, his clothes, shoes, hair, etc., would have been spattered with blood and body tissue. But the resulting investigation soon centred on Cheryl's boyfriend, Jonathan Jones. But in a strange twist of events, the judge who sentenced him wrote a letter to the Home Secretary saying, he had "significant doubt" about the conviction.
There was no direct evidence against Mr Jones and the prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence as ‘pointers to guilt’. Evidence given under oath by police officers was found to be untrue and some ‘pointers’ were found to be manufactured.
Many lines of inquiry were not investigated by the police - including a proper initial search of the crime scene and tracing potentially crucial witnesses. The jury convicted Jones by majority verdict.
Within 4 days the trial judge took the unprecedented step of writing to Mr Jones’ QC expressing his disagreement with the verdict. The Court of Appeal later overturned the conviction.
Johnathan at the time supported my calls for an inquiry into South Wales Police and kept in regular contact at the time and he launched the campaign with me and other wrongly accused people at a press conference like Annette Hewins and Adrian Stone.
In 2001, a re-investigation was launched and in 2003, the team who cracked the Lynette White murder mystery were called in to investigate. By 2008, it seemed the murder hunt was at an end and a day before the 15th anniversary of the horrific execution-style shootings, police admitted they had reached a dead end.
All officers were pulled off the case until 2011, when police were set to look at the case again after the quadruple murder conviction of John Cooper.Even so, there were no new leads, and the case remains one of Wales' most notorious unsolved murders.
South Wales Police said the historic murder case had been allocated to the Specialist Crime Review Unit and would "remain under active consideration and will be subject of re-investigation as and when new information is received or when there are advances in forensic science".
A spokesman added: "Each case is reviewed periodically. If information comes in from the public or other forces we act on it." South Wales Police has had every opportunity to find the real killer and say sorry to Johnathan Jones and his fiancé at the time Cheryl now his wife.
To date Johnathan and Cheryl have not had an official apology from the ordeal they both went through or has he been compensated in any way. I feel it’s time to stop allowing South Wales Police to investigate their own as its morally wrong and unjust.
It has been 28 years since this heinous crime was committed and still the killer is still at large. A new investigation is needed by an outside force and unless this happens I cannot see justice being done.
This case will play a central part in any Judicial inquiry and we need to look at how this injustice came about and where lessons can be learnt. It’s important to point out that this case and all the others in this book should not have even reached the Crown prosecution Service let alone be charged and convicted.
It goes without saying that this Judicial inquiry has to look at the Crown Prosecution Service, the Prosecuting barristers, Defence Solicitors and much more than just looking at the Police. If we just looked at the police side of things it would let too many other so-called professionals of the hook. We need accountability to include everyone and not just the select few.
Idris Ali and Alan Charlton -1991
Idris Ali and Alan Charlton were convicted in 1991 of the murder of Cardiff schoolgirl Karen Price ten years earlier in 1981. Ali’s conviction was quashed in the Court of Appeal in 1994 and substituted with a manslaughter guilty plea but Ali protested his innocence until his death in 2017. Charlton remains in prison beyond his tariff, refusing to accept his conviction. There was no forensic evidence against either man, both convictions rested solely on the confession of Ali, who claimed that he was bullied and threatened throughout his detention. An independent psychiatric expert showed that Ali was suffering from ‘intellectual impairment, compliancy, eagerness to please and conflict avoidance.’
A number of irregularities in this case have led to concerns that the convictions are unsafe. Ali withdrew his statements a number of times. The only prosecution witness (named Witness D) retracted her statements, citing pressure from officers to incriminate the two accused, only to re-instate them after herself being charged with the murder, a charge which was subsequently dropped. A prisoner apparently overheard a cell confession by Charlton, which he denied, but it was later disclosed that the prisoner was a friend of Ali, and was later a suspect in the Newsagent Three case. Records relating to the questioning of Witness D were lost, as was the original (non-incriminating) statement she gave. Inspector Stuart Lewis was central to the inquiry into Karen Price’s murder, along with DI Mouncher, who was central to the discredited Cardiff Five case.
Alan Charlton, 56, of Bridgwater, and Idris Ali, 51, of Cardiff, were both found guilty of her murder in 1991 and jailed for life. Both men had their case referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice. Their appeals are based on claims that evidence from the key trial witness, known only as D, could not be relied upon. Their lawyers say it was obtained by a “similar team of officers” as those who worked on the Lynette White murder case in the 1980s.
That case triggered an investigation into alleged corruption within South Wales Police, after three men were wrongly convicted of her murder. Charlton is still behind bars, but Ali was freed in 1994 after his murder conviction was overturned and he admitted manslaughter.
But Ali now claims he only pleaded guilty because he wanted to get out of prison and in fact, had no involvement in Karen’s death. His lawyers said a medical expert believed Ali’s “significant intellectual impairment” made him more likely to make things up and that he was a “habitual liar”. They also told the court his “history of telling lies” meant his admission of guilt should be treated with the “utmost care”. William Hughes QC, representing Ali, said: “He had been in prison for more than three-and-a-half years. “It was four days before Christmas and he had a good inkling that, if he were to plead guilty, he would be released there and then.”
The court heard Ali admitted manslaughter over his involvement in Karen’s death in December 1994 and was released from jail, having served three years and nine months behind bars. He pleaded guilty at that time on the basis that evidence given by D, the key prosecution witness was accurate.
D said she was present when Charlton attacked Karen Price at his flat in Fitzhamon Embankment and that Ali, who was also there, did nothing to contribute to her death. (Wales online 12/8/2021)
Lawyers for the men argued during their appeal that evidence from the key witness in the trial - a girl from the same children's home as Karen who was known only as D - could not be relied upon. It was this testimony which implicated the men in Karen's killing. Ali claims he confessed to manslaughter to get out of jail. Charlton's representatives claimed police officers involved in the investigation pressurised key prosecution witnesses. Some also worked on the 1988 murder of Cardiff prostitute Lynette White, which later triggered an investigation into alleged police corruption.
Lawyers argued if that was known at the time of their prosecution, the evidence from D would have been excluded or viewed differently by the jury. Furthermore, the confession alleged to have been made to Stuart Lewis before his trial whilst in the police station Ali always
denied making and again a pattern emerges of confessions just appearing out of thin air from this police officer, and more was to come.
Ali and Charlton had their Appeal heard and was dismissed after a short hearing in 2016. I know after speaking to someone who knew the case well from the Criminal Cases Review Commission that they were devastated this case was not overturned at the Court of Appeal.
This case had all the hallmarks of previous Miscarriages of Justices in Wales.
This case needs to be investigated by an outside force and added to the judicial Inquiry that is needed. I have no doubt that Charlton and Ali are innocent. The method’s used to convict them was the same as in my case, the Cardiff three case and Darvell’s brothers who share that common thread of having a vulnerable co accused in each case and obtaining a confession after long interviews and bullying tactics, targeting him, and for long periods of time denying him access to his lawyers and keeping him up most of the night. Charlton has done Over 26 years in prison whilst Ali has since passed away. I believe a further application to the CCRC will be made if new evidence comes to light.
Sharon Kelleher - 1983-84
Sharon Kelleher worked as a wages clerk at a Welsh factory GKO, the factory was robbed of cash. The police immediately presumed it was an inside job and she became their Number one suspect.
The police case against her was that she gave her boyfriend, Peter Langlois significant information about her works and they jointly conspired to rob her employers of the money They were both charged. The statement of Sharon Kelleher was read out in court and describes her ordeal at the hands of Inspector Stuart Lewis: I would have done anything the police officers told me, as my one and only desire was to go home”. During the interviews,Kelleher went on to say that Lewis would bang a stick on the table from behind her which made her jump and cry. Lewis went to say that she wasn’t telling the truth, but if she did, she would be allowed home to see her baby.’ we know you are not telling us the truth, if you tell us you can go home to your baby.
Sharon Kelleher told the police that she might have talked about the lack of security at the factory to her boyfriend but not, with a deliberate intention to furnish him with information to commit a robbery. She claimed that people were coming in and out of the room and asking if she had confessed yet and that Lewis would bang the stick when she wasn’t expecting it. “None of the officers believed anything I was saying in relation to not being involved” recalls Kelleher. She was terrified and kept thinking about her baby, because if anything happened to her she didn’t know who would take care of it.
Sharon Kelleher’s statement was read from the dock and had a significant impact on the jury. Kelleher was acquitted by the jury who believed her. Again, this calls into question Inspector Stuart Lewis’s integrity.
Peter Langlois was found guilty by the jury but still protests his innocence to this day and is trying to overturn his conviction.
There was one more final piece of evidence in this case which seriously goes to the heart of misconduct by inspector Stuart Lewis. A former police officer gave a statement to the BBC who worked on the Kelleher case and stated on the program that she remembers the case very well and the police were convinced it was an inside job and convinced that Kelleher was guilty.
This officer remembers that Lewis had approached her to add things to the contemporary notes she had taken when interviewing Kelleher. The officer stated she was appalled at the suggestion to be asked to do such a thing and refused to do this.
Lewis wanted her to put things in the interview notes, which were not said by Kelleher to incriminate the boyfriend. He wanted her also to include things, she had not said and to put words into Kelleher’s mouth to incriminate herself. This officer refused to do this and told him she was not going to put her job on the line. I understand that she actually left the force about two years after this case following a harrowing sequence of harassment and abuse by fellow officers.
On the day of the court case this officer stated that Lewis approached her again and this time asked her to incriminate the boyfriend, again she refused to do this.No action was taken against Lewis regarding this blatant attempt to pervert the course of Justice and no investigation into his conduct was ever forthcoming, it does beg the question why not?
More importantly if an investigation had taken place into Lewis in these previous cases; could it have it prevented further false evidence from him and possibly stopped him causing any more miscarriages of justice.
Gordon Christopher Cox - 1985
Gordon Christopher Cox was tried for murder, and according to press reports at the time, he claimed that he had been bullied into making a false confession by Stuart Lewis (Nb: Not the same officer as in Clydach murders case. His conviction for murder was quashed by the Court of Appeal.
At present no more details are known of this case as it has not been possible to obtain the Judgement from the Court of Appeal in London. All papers relating to this case are believed to be still in existence and are routinely sent to the Public Records Office. They are not available for inspection by the public but will be provided to interested parties, and presumably, to any judicial inquiry.
Unfortunately, during my investigations, i found out that Gordon Christopher Cox had died and I was therefore, unable to obtain the documents to his case as it was not clear who is solicitor was at the time. However I did find out that his case papers still existed and in that respect, would assist any judicial inquiry and, more importantly would allow tests to be carried out on the alleged confession allegedly recorded by Inspector Stuart Lewis.
Cox’s is another case that should be reopened and investigated. The same question arises why was Inspector Stuart Lewis NOT investigated in relation to this confession? By 1985 this was the third time that Lewis was associated with an alleged confession by a defendant. Alarm bells should have been ringing and maybe they were, however the system turned a blind eye to his wrong doing and you have to question the Home Secretary at the time who was previously told by a Plaid Cymru MP about what Inspector Stuart Lewis was up to, and had a clear opportunity to stop him in his tracks. Had they done so the cases after Gordon Cristopher Cox would not have happened.
David George Morris, The Clydach Murders - 2002 & 2006
In 2002, and again in 2006, builders’ labourer, David George Morris, was convicted of the brutal murders of elderly pensioner Doris Dawson, her divorced daughter Mandy Power, Mandy’s young daughters Katie and Emily, in a crime that became known as The Clydach Murders. Morris was given four life prison terms. He always maintained his innocence.
Among the many anomalies surrounding the case is a statement made by the South Wales Police detective leading the case three weeks after the murder investigation ended that there was no trace evidence (fingerprints and DNA) found at the crime scene: he explained, “the murderer had wiped it all away.”
This incredible claim was repeated by Mr Patrick Harrington prosecuting QC in both trials who said that “Morris was careful and cunning and had wiped away his fingerprints and DNA.” Mr Butterfield in the Swansea Crown Court trial and Mr McKinnon in the Newport trial told their respective juries “the murderer was forensically aware.”
However, a university lecturer in forensics and scene of crimes officer who studied the case said that “this claim was impossible, and that in a crime of this brutality, trace evidence is always left behind.”
In November 2014, it was revealed that fingerprints and male DNA had indeed been found at the crime scene, though none of it belonged to David M other places, on the two spent matches used to start the fires; clothing Mandy Power was wearing when she was killed, on a silver watch placed on Mandy’s wrist after she was dead, and even on the murder weapon. This crucial evidence was never made available to either jury.
In 2017 retired lawyer John Morris published The Clydach Murders: A Miscarriage of Justice in which he confidentially asserted that not only was Morris innocent of the crimes but, on the basis of the forensic evidence alone, he could not have committed the murders.
Witnesses came forward to say they had been ‘leaned on by the police’ to change their evidence: other witnesses were told what they should say in their statements and in court, and at least one witness was prevented from giving in court vital evidence which may well have changed the outcome of the trial(s).
Not only is David Morris innocent of the Clydach murders, but he has been deliberately framed for the crimes. He is not, and cannot be, the Clydach murderer.
Other pointers to show he is innocent are as follows:
1. One of the police officers that was arrested, and originally suspected of involvement in the crime, Stuart Lewis (Nb; Not the same officer as the in Cardiff Newsagent Three case) was picked out by a witness in an identity parade. David Morris was not picked out.
2. The E-fit image looked nothing like David Morris and had an uncanny resemblance to the officer who was picked out in the identity parade – Stuart Lewis (Not the same officer as the in Cardiff Newsagent Three case).
3. No fingerprints or DNA was found to link David Morris to the crime.
There was DNA found all over the crime scene that suggested that a male was responsible for the crime and it did not belong to David Morris. The CCRC have consistently refused to have this DNA tested, even it could clear David Morris.
A judicial inquiry into this case is essential and South Wales Police have serious questions to answer in relation to the case. Clearly a miscarriage of justice has occurred that needs to be addressed without delay.
The Campaign to get David Morris’s case reviewed is gaining momentum and public meetings have been held in Wales. David Morris also has an army of over 27,000 followers on Facebook and the membership is growing daily.
I have worked on miscarriages of justice cases for the past 34 years and I know a wrongful conviction when I see one. The case of Dai Morris is the biggest Miscarriage of Justice ever to happen in Wales, yet time and again the CCRC refuse to send the case back to the Court of Appeal when there is overwhelming new evidence which has not been placed before any court or jury.
In 2020 BBC Wales ran an hour-long documentary on David Morris’s case casting serious doubts on his guilt. New witnesses came forward and gave descriptions of a person they saw on the night of the murder. In our view this was significant new evidence that should have been placed before the Criminal Cases Review Commission. However shortly after this programme was aired, South Wales Police after demands were made by Morris’ lawyer for an investigation. South Wales Police surprisingly announced in the media that they were going to undertake an investigation into the case. This family welcomed the investigation and the news that fresh claims raised by his lawyers were to be re-examined.
In 2021 South Wales Police announced that it was to appoint a senior independent investigating officer from another police force and an independent forensic scientist to oversee a case review involving new evidence. This was to include, inter alia, testing for DNA the bloodied sock used by the killer as a glove while wielding the murder weapon. This is expected to reveal the true identity of the murderer.
Morris’ daughter, Janiene Morris, said the family had been shocked at the announcement yesterday, despite years of campaigning - but added that she hoped the review would be truly independent.
South Wales Police however stressed that “the decision to carry out a forensic review does not constitute a reopening or reinvestigation of the murders, nor does it demonstrate any lack of confidence in the conviction of Morris and the subsequent case reviews.
“Morris was convicted unanimously by a jury on the strength of the prosecution case and independent reviews by the Criminal Cases Review Commission have not identified any new evidence.
“Due to the advancement of forensic technology, we may now be in a position to answer some of the questions which have been raised about forensic issues in this case.
“The appointment of an independent senior investigating officer from an outside force and an independent forensic scientist will ensure the review is conducted with a layer of independence.”
I knew as soon as I saw this statement from the police that it was just a paper exercise and the results were going to be swept under the carpet. I warned everyone supporting Morris that this was going to be a whitewash, and is exactly what it has turned out to be.
In July 2021 it was announced that the evidence of one of the new witnesses who came forward was unreliable and it did not undermine the conviction. Morris’s family were, of course, devastated and bewildered.
However, investigations into forensic issues vis-à-vis DNA testing of the bloodied sock have yet to be revealed; we can only speculate upon why it is taking so long.
This announcement did not surprise me at all. I was gutted for David and his family because you cling on to that little bit of hope that your gut instincts are wrong.The only thing South Wales Police are looking at now is the forensic issue – the bloodied sock.
I personally think it should have been the CCRC’s job to investigate this case and interview the new witnesses and obtain statements from them and I hold them personally responsible for permitting the whitewash of yet another investigation.
The reason why David Morris remained in prison for so long lies solely at the door of the CCRC who have consistently refused to investigate the case when they have clear leads to follow. I am of the view they are no longer fit for their intended purpose and should be reformed or abolished altogether with a new review panel put in its place.
In the meantime, we will have to wait and see what becomes of this so called forensic investigation. I won’t hold my breath that’s for sure, However the fight to free Morris will carry on until he is proved innocent, because that’s what he is an innocent man.
This is why a judicial inquiry is needed into his case. So, we can get to the truth. CCRC have
let too many innocent people like David Morris down. Enough is enough.
On the 20th of August 2021 David Morris was found dead in Long Lartin Prison. At the time of writing all we know is that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding his death. However, we await the post mortem report.
David’s death has shocked us all, and my thoughts are with his family, friends and campaigners. One thing is for sure, I and many others will continue to fight for justice for David Morris. Anyone who looks at the case with an open mind must come to the conclusion that he was is innocent and could not have committed this heinous crime.
I feel numb with grief and still cannot believe that Dai Morris is no longer with us. However, the fight to clear his name will continue and it will be a case of no Justice No Peace. RIP David Morris.
Anthony Yellen - 1983
The case of Anthony Yellen is one of the first that we know of where Inspector Stuart Lewis attempted to use a fabricated confession in order to gain a wrongful conviction.
In 1983 Yellen was charged with murder and robbery. Whilst in police custody he was alleged to have made a confession in the police cells which Lewis took down and recorded in his notebook. The ‘confession’ ran to an astonishingly lengthy 39 pages but, when it was put to him later, Yellen denied that he had made this confession.
Yellen’s solicitor Mark Crowley recalled from the trial that Lewis had evidently fabricated it, as it began with; “If only I had my time again it wouldn’t be like this”. Mark Crowley told the BBC Week In Week Out team: “That this was not the language that the defendant used coming from a working-class background in Cardiff, it was more akin to a Hollywood script”.
How could such a long confession have been written down in such a short space of time as that alleged by Lewis? When it came to Yellen’s trial, this confession would have dominated in the minds of the jurors. The jury asked the judge if the officer who had written the ‘confession’ could conduct a demonstration to test if the confession could have been written down as he alleged. Lewis’ words were noted at the time upon hearing this request from the jury: “Anyone who said that these notes were not accurate was a wicked and despicable liar”
This recollection came from Mark Crowley, the solicitor, who was at the trial. The significance of this was that here was a jury giving Lewis the opportunity to show them how he had written these contemporaneous notes. His refusal to comply with that request then failing to provide a statement, strongly suggested he had something to hide. Lewis’ wrongdoing had been exposed and he was put on the spot by the jury. He couldn’t produce ‘the goods’ because the confession was fabricated and he knew it.
It came as no surprise when the jury acquitted Yellen of murder and threw out the false confession, However Yellen was convicted of the burglary, nevertheless, the judge gave him a total discharge.
After this case there should have been an inquiry into Lewis’s wrongdoing vis-à-vis the fabricated confession. The authorities could and should have stopped Lewis in his tracks, instead they allowed him to carry on as if nothing had happened. He went on to continue acting in the same unlawful manner whilst the authorities turned a blind eye. This resulted in innocent men standing trial and some being convicted of serious crimes, ruining their lives in the process.
Michael Attwooll and John Roden - 1995
Attwooll and Roden were convicted of the 1994 murder of Attwooll’s business partner and the partner’s girlfriend in Risca, South Wales. The murders took place in the early hours of a Friday morning at the taxi office in an industrial estate on the edge of Risca. The trial was told that Attwooll became incensed that the couple had started an affair and arranged for sexually explicit photographs of the couple to be sent to their spouses. When the plan failed, he recruited Roden to help kill the pair.
A scrap merchant gave evidence that he was in an adjacent unit at the time and heard shots. He said that just before the bangs he heard Attwooll and Mr Stevens speaking in raised voices, although he was unable to distinguish any of their words. He told Newport Crown Court he went home in a state of fear, and saw nothing.
The only substantial evidence against Roden came from a man called Carl Perkins, a petty thief with a history of mental illness who had undergone electric shock treatment at a local hospital. Mr Perkins said Roden had given him the murder gun to dispose of, and that he had thrown it into the River Ebbw at Risca. A weapon was recovered from the river by police divers three months after the crime, but experts could not state categorically that it had been used to kill Mr Stevens.
On the night of the murders Roden is known to have been in bed at the flat of his girlfriend, Attwooll's daughter Vicky. A female friend of Vicky's was in the flat at the relevant time and said he did not go out through the front door. To leave he would have had to climb out of the first-floor bedroom window and then scale a high wall. Mr Perkins told the court he happened to be outside the flat at the appropriate time and saw Roden get into a car driven by Attwooll.
Both have strongly protested their innocence, in what campaigner Bob Woffinden called one of the worst cases of wrongful conviction.’ There was no forensic evidence against either man, and the trial judge conceded that ‘there was no evidence of any strong motive.’
Neither men were considered suspects initially until Attwooll was asked by officers to inspect the crime scene hours after the murders without protective shoes, gloves or forensic suit. A local drug dealer was investigated who possessed an illegally modified firearm. The same suspect’s fingerprints were on a shooting magazine found in Attwooll’s address which Attwooll claimed did not belong to him. Items recovered from this suspect’s shed included sawn-up barrels of air-rifles, parts of mechanisms of air-rifles and a live round of .22 ammunition, the same calibre used in the murders.
The suspect was the subject of a tip-off by a member of the public that he was dealing in drugs, but this was not acted upon until seven months later, on the same day that the jury was due to do a site visit.
Another local drug dealer became a witness, insisting that Roden had confessed to him. The day after the murders, this witness was seen burning items in his garden and had an unrecorded discussion with officers. His wife provided a false alibi for the him for the time of the murders. At trial, the only evidence against Roden were the statements by this witness and the witness’s wife.
A prisoner on remand, who had been refused bail, claimed to have heard Attwooll’s cell confession, which Attwooll denied. The prisoner was then bailed. The prisoner’s wife then made an appointment to see the prison chaplain with crucial information’ but then disappeared.
A spot of blood, large enough to be seen with the naked eye, appeared on a boot belonging to Roden. It had been by the police for nine months before anyone noticed. The forensic scientist could not explain why this spot had not been noticed before and that it was possible it had been contaminated while being held by police.
A colleague of Attwooll apparently made an incriminating statement against him but claimed certain parts of the statement were added without his knowledge. He attempted to tell the judge at trial but was dismissed. I came across this case when I was working for South Wales Liberty now known as South Wales against wrongful conviction. I met the family of John and Michael and started actively campaigning on their behalf clearly something was seriously to convict them on no evidence at all and believed a miscarriage of Justice had occurred in this case.
At Christmas we held candlelight vigils and started protesting about their wrongful conviction and then started doing regular Press conferences to keep the media informed what was going on.
An Application to the Criminal Cases review commission was made in 2003 and The Criminal Cases Review Commission said a panel will decide early in the New Year whether to refer the case of Roden to the Court of Appeal. A decision will be taken later on whether to refer Attwooll's conviction in the same way.
In 2005 however The Criminal Cases Review Commission had decided not to refer John Roden's conviction to the Court of Appeal. We were all taken back with surprise and anger.
"There is no basis for maintaining this conviction as the evidence against John is hopelessly flimsy and entirely unreliable," said campaigns officer Dennis Eady, criticising the CCRC for "holding on" to the decision for 18 months.
"The CCRC was established to correct miscarriages of justice. Sadly, it does not seem to have the moral courage to push the Court of Appeal in order to achieve this."
He said the decision was a "catastrophe" for Roden and Attwooll, whose case has not reached the CCRC. Since the CCRC have rejected the case more work was undertaken and further evidence was submitted to the CCRC however all requests to have the case referred has fallen on deaf ears. As we have seen in my case, Darvell Brothers case only an outside force has ever uncovered wrong doing in regards South Wales Police and here is another example of why we need a outside force in this case. The fight for Roden and Attwooll will continue.
Attwooll has since been released on Parole however John is still in a category D prison waiting to be released on parole. Long-time campaigner for John was his mum Mary Roden who will not see her son a free man due to the fact she passed away. I met her and worked with her an amazing woman who reminded me of my own mum who fought for me. The fight continues.
Merthyr 3 1996-97
Three women were charged, and Annette Hewins and Donna Clarke were convicted of arson with the intent to endanger life. They were sentenced to 13 years and 20 years respectively for killing Diane Jones and her two small children in an arson Attack on their home in Merthyr Tydfil.
Their convictions were overturned on appeal in February 1999, after they had spent almost three years in custody. Annette Hewin’s gave birth to her fourth child in custody and was separated from her son (and her other children) for the first two years of his life.
The main prosecution witness was a 16-year-old girl who was arrested for the murder. Officers suggested that she might be charged with the murder, despite there being no basis for this, and after some time in the police station she changed her account of events on the night of the arson attack to present an account implicating Donna Clark thereby placed herself beyond suspicion.
In interview, police officers put to her a distorted version of the evidence collected in the investigation, and told her that certain witnesses had reported matters that they had not in fact reported. In cross examination at trial, she said she had given a false account in order to get out of the police station, though retracted much of this when cross examined by the prosecution barrister. It appears that this young and vulnerable woman was suggestible, and changed her account as a result of police manipulation and pressure.
Evidence which was overlooked when Annette was implicated in buying petrol was the fact Annette bought leaded petrol and the petrol which started the fire was unleaded this clearly proves they were innocent, yet the police will not acknowledge this as an actual fact. Had the jury known about this at the time of trial they would not have been convicted and you must ask the question where were there legal team and why did they not pick this up?
The case was looked at by this Miscarriage of Justice Unit set up by South Wales Police in 1999 but not surprisingly no arrests were made.
The affect this miscarriage of justice had on Annette was massive and in her own words said of the terrible affect her prison sentence had on her family life and told how she had just nine hours with one son before he was taken away, after giving birth to him in an ambulance around the corner from the prison as she dashed to hospital.
She said: 'I don't think there are words that can explain the pain. I had just given birth but there was no baby. I had all the symptoms of just having had a baby but I felt empty.
'My children have been denied what a normal child's life should be because they would spend three hours a week going to a prison to visit their mother. They're going to be scarred for the rest of their lives - that's something I can't change.' (Wales online)
Due to the wrongful conviction Annette went on a downwood spiral and turned to the drugs she became a heroin addict and I tried to help her like many others did but it was to no avail. Annette could not cope with what happened to her and there was no getting away from it Prison damaged her to such an extent that she turned to crime to feed her drug habit.
From my point of view, it was devastating to watch my good friend go through this and not be able to help her. Annette and I attended many press conferences calling for an inquiry. We campaigned together and worked hard to get some answers for the wrongful conviction.
I recall one Christmas the police were looking for her and she rang me to ask me to meet her at Cardiff Market so I did to see if I could help her, she didn’t tell me why the police were looking for her and I didn’t ask. I t was so good to see her and asked her how I could help she told me she had no money to buy the children Christmas presents I told her not to worry that I could lend her some. I gave her £400 and after an hour she said she had to go. With hindsight was she telling me the truth, or did I just feed her drug habit? I guess I will never know and it would not be fair to judge her. I did what I thought was the right thing.
Worse was to come and Annette ended up back in prison for shop lifting and other petty crimes on not just one occasion but a few. I lost contact with Annette but read in the newspapers about her struggle with Heroin and seen her court appearances mounting up.
A few years after these events I was reading the local newspaper when I came across an article about Annette had passed away after being sectioned under the Mental Health Act. I was rather shocked she was only 51. I will never forget Annette she was one of only a few people who understood my pain and injustice and to die in the Circumstances that she did again, the system let her down not just any old person but a dear friend.
I want to fulfil Annette’s wish that was to catch the killers of the crimes she was wrongly convicted of. Rest assured the fight for the victim’s family and Annette will continue. Annette’s case will be referred to any judicial inquiry we may get in the future.
Patrick McCann - 1990
Patrick McCann was convicted of the manslaughter of his neighbour, Richard Holdsworth of robbing him of cash, largely on the evidence of Holdsworth’s two sisters, who lived in the flat above the victim.
There was no forensic evidence against McCann; of 167 items tested from the victim’s flat none could be linked to McCann but there were several fingerprints belonging to his sisters Bridget and Susan. Bridget’s statement was weak as she was suffering from alcoholic neuropathy at the time and has since died of alcoholism. Her medical records were not disclosed to the jury at trial.
Bridget had significant differences between her two statements to police; the second contained far greater detail and new incidents relevant to prosecuting McCann. However, at trial Bridget was unable to recall her own address. Furthermore, a psychologist stated that she was unable to grasp a sense of time and was suggestible. Another doctor stated that she was an unreliable witness.
Susan was convicted of possessing money taken from the victim but absconded from jail and is now believed to be in Ireland. An expert pathologist at the trial did not rule out that the victim had died of natural causes, and an opportune robbery had taken place.
McCann served his full sentence, rather than accept parole, and sadly he died shortly after he was released.
I was in Long Lartin prison with Paddy and we had many conversations about Inspector Stuart Lewis Paddy said to me Mike yes, I’ve been in trouble before mostly for fighting but this time I can honestly say I did not do this and that Inspector Stuart Lewis made up the incriminating remarks I did not say them.
It should be noted that Paddy could not read or write, and he told me he just signed what was put in front of him. When it started coming out that Inspector Stuart Lewis had a history of making up confessions we were both visited by a journalist called Bruce Kennedy from ITV Wales Me and Paddy had a joint visit from him.
It was then we learnt about the other cases like the welsh conspiracy trial where confessions were at a premium from Inspector Stuart Lewis allegedly from the defendants in that case and Bruce had other cases where he did the same practise. Now a pattern of corruption was starting to emerge, and Bruce wanted to do a documentary about both our cases.
In 1993 Paddy had home leave and went to the ITV studios to film his case with Bruce, my family did my story, and I gave a telephone interview from Long Lartin Prison it aired on ITV Wales later that year. Paddy had a chance of getting Parole but he refused to take it. Paddy wanted his name cleared and although he served his full sentence and was released from prison. He continued to fight the wrongful conviction on the outside. Paddy’s case was referred to the Court of Appeal in 2000 and although new evidence was presented by his QC, they still dismissed his case.
Like many other victims of Miscarriages of Justice, he died very young, and before he could get his name cleared. Today the baton has been passed to me to champion his cause and I hope by highlighting his case I’ve kept his case and memory alive.
Paddy’s case needs to be included in the Judicial inquiry especially because of the links to inspector Stuart Lewis and the other proven miscarriage of justice cases where verbal admissions were the order of the day in law, we call this evidence of similar fact.
Roy Moore - 2006
Roy Moore was convicted at Cardiff Crown Court for the murder of Beverley Parkhouse on the 6th March 2008. Beverley was found dead in her bed at her father’s house on the morning of the 4th September 2006. Her lighter and mobile phone had been taken from the scene.
There was of evidence of a small fire that had extinguished itself. As Beverley was a smoker, it was initially thought she had fallen asleep whilst smoking a cigarette and died from smoke inhalation. Consequently, it was not treated as an official crime scene. However, the first post-mortem confirmed that this was not the cause of death. A second post-mortem concluded that the presence of bruising and petechial haemorrhages suggested the likely cause of death was pressure to the face and neck.
Roy Moore was arrested for the murder on the 20th September 2006. During police interviews he admitted to having an extra-marital affair with the victim since April or May 2005. Beverley was still with her husband throughout this time and up until her death, despite spending much of her time supporting her father and staying at his home, while her husband resided at his and Beverley’s home nearby.
Roy and Beverley were confirmed to have both been at their regular local club on Sunday 3rd September. Beverley had arrived back at her father’s house alone around 23.30 when they shared a cigarette. She then made two phone calls to him at 23.41 and 00.00 (in the absence of her father). Her father then confirmed that she came back downstairs fully clothed around 00.15, which was unusual – after having another cigarette together, she then went back upstairs.
Moore claimed that because Beverley’s father was unwell, they did not meet in the house as usual. Instead, she came out to see him in his car at 00.40 where she gave him a signet ring. He denied having sexual intercourse with the victim that night. Roy claims she then went back into the house around 2am.
The prosecution case was that Roy entered the house and strangled Beverley in her bed following an argument about her leaving the club with another man. He then set light to the bedroom in a bid to hide his tracks. The case against Roy was entirely circumstantial. The presence of his sperm in the bed was suggested to support the account that he was in the house and had sex with the victim that night. Roy claimed the sperm in the bed was from sexual intercourse the prior Thursday (31 August). There was no other physical trace evidence linking Roy to the crime – his fingerprints were not on the smoke alarm where the battery was removed.
Some bad character evidence relating to previous relationships was used against Roy but overall, the case was weak at the time he was charged. Roy was experiencing health problems and was held on remand at the prison hospital wing.
An attempt was made to bolster the case against Roy by the evidence of two prison informants (Glynn Parfitt and Darren George) that Roy had confessed to the murder whilst in prison. Roy denies speaking to Glyn Parfitt or Darren George and claimed they fabricated their accounts to get a reward. The defence evidence contains a diary kept by Roy at the time where he contemporaneously recorded his fears about these known informants, and at one point records them singing “we’re in the money”.
Roy later recorded the following in relation to these two men:
“In the subsequent trial both these men gave evidence. As well as the proposed reward (£20,000)
1) Parfitt admitted that he was “co-operating” with the police in return for a 3 bedroomed local authority house when released from prison. He had previously been living in a caravan.
2) George admitted in cross examination that he made the statement in “payment” for a “D” cat. He duly received a “D” cat move (Open prison conditions).
Whilst George was in “D” cat, he contravened prison rules. He was found with a mobile phone and then returned to “closed” conditions. There he admitted to another inmate that the statement he had made to police in the “Parkhouse” murder was in fact a fabrication. This relevant witness made a statement to my solicitors.”
The defence case was that Roy was innocent of the crime. He put forward two alternative suspects at trial – Beverley’s husband who he suggested might have found out about the affair and therefore had a motive, and another man who, it was claimed, had confessed to the murder of Beverley before killing himself in prison (while on remand for a robbery charge). However, police investigations appear to eliminate this man as a suspect.
The use of unreliable (reward-seeking) prison informants to bolster a weak case is a common theme in many miscarriages of justice and a major concern in relation to the safety of Roy’s conviction. Roy Moore has made an application to the CCRC and he’s trying to find new evidence to prove his innocence and has always maintained his innocence.