Update: Monday 17th July 2000. Today the M25 three had their convictions declared unsafe because of an unfair trial, this had also been the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. But for this - would the British Judiciary have come to this decision? The judge acknowledged that there had been corruption and bribery by the police and said he wanted those responsible brought to book. The rottenness of British justice however was once again demonstrated when Lord Justice Mantell said this did not mean the men were innocent. Well if they have not been proved guilty they must be innocent, but then the stupid people who run this business do not want to understand this (Should judges who don't understand be doing the job?). The judge also said action by a member of the jury could have influenced other jurors. Well, surprise, surprise, judge, all kinds of things are said and done inside the jury room to influence the others. The reason it is all secret is because it favours the prosecution. We all need to know (see our Jury page). Once again British justice has been proved to be unreliable. But will the people responsible for stitching-up these men now be brought to justice? These men spent 12 years in prison as scapegoats for something they did not do.
The Case of the M25 Three
On the night of the 15/16 December 1988 three masked men
conducted a series of violent attacks just off the M25 in Surrey that left one man
dead, another wounded, two houses robbed and four cars stolen. The tabloid press
dubbed the perpetrators the "M25 Gang" and a £25,000 reward was offered for their
capture.
In March 1990 after a six week trial, three black men Raphael ROWE, Michael DAVIS
and Randolph JOHNSON were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
However,
they were convicted on the most tenuous of evidence. No direct, forensic, confessional,
or identification evidence linked the three to the crimes. What evidence did exist
was not only circumstantial but unreliable, contradictory and inconsistent without
logic and common sense.
To begin with according to the victims of the offences the
robbers were TWO WHITE MEN AND ONE BLACK MAN. Secondly, five independent witnesses,
two of whom gave evidence for the prosecution, placed ROWE and DAVIS being dropped
off at their home at precisely the same time, 10 miles away, as other witnesses saw
the gang's car in the vicinity of the murder scene.
Suspects turned prosecution witnesses
namely, Shane GRIFFIN, Norman DUNCAN and MARK JOBBINS gave the principle evidence
against the three men. Not only did these three men contradict themselves and each
other countless times, which clearly demonstrated they lied and lied, but they fitted
the descriptions of two white men given by the victims.
For example: Two victims from
separate offences said one of the robbers had fair hair, one added the fair haired
man also had blue eyes. None of the black men fitted this description but DUNCAN
did. Moreover, his and JOBBINS fingerprints were found on a stolen green Triumph
Spitfire car abandoned at the murder scene. JOBBINS, DUNCAN and GRIFFIN also disposed
of the stolen cars and stored the property stolen during the robberies.
If this was
not enough, the integrity of the police investigation and conduct of the prosecution
is seriously open to question. Joanne CASSER, another important prosecution witness,
complained that the police pressurised and threatened her into changing her times
and dates to fit their case. The only witness to the murder, Alan ELY, crucially
changed his timing and account of what happen after the police told him that his
original version of events; supportive of the defence case, 'did not fit' the timings
they required. JOBBINS, DUNCAN and GRIFFIN, the suspects who became, prosecution
witnesses did so only after unrecorded interviews with the investigating officers.
The existence of these interviews was not only never made known to the defence but
the interviews themselves were a clear breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act 1984 and led to a Police Complaints Investigation. The results of the investigation
have never been disclosed to the defence.
Nevertheless, in a conversation with a BBC
researcher in 1998, DUNCAN admitted for the very first time that he was threatened
and told what to say by the police to incriminate ROWE, DAVIS and JOHNSON during
the unrecorded interview. He also admitted receiving £10,000 of the £25,000 reward
for sticking to the evidence he gave. While these deals were going on with DUNCAN,
the witness GRIFFIN turned the table and held the police to ransom by threatening
to withdraw his evidence if they charged him with crimes related and unrelated to
this case.
THE CASE OF 'THE M25 THREE' IS ONE OF SERIOUS CONCERN. THE THREE MEN HAVE
NOW SPENT ELEVEN YEARS IN PRISON. IF YOU BELIEVE IN JUSTICE THEN PLEASE SUPPORT THEIR
CASE.
Case Progress (written by Raphael Rowe - March 1999)
The Criminal Cases Review
Commission (CCRC) has been investigating our case for 2 years yet they still have
no idea when they expect to reach a decision and whether or not they are going to
refer our case to the Court of Appeal. Before they took over the responsibility of
investigating our case, the Home Office spent 3 years investigating it. So far it
has taken 5 years for our case to be investigated, this is diabolical and should
not be allowed to happen.
What are they doing? Why has it taken all these years? When
will the investigation end?
As far as I am concerned, and I speak from 11 years experience,
the judicial set up to investigate miscarriages of justice before and since the CCRC
took responsibility is disgraceful and incapable.
If you require further details or
information about this case please contact the campaign at: M25 Case Campaign, 28
Grimsel Path, Farmers Road, Camberwell, London SE5 OTB. Tel/fax: 0171 735 298
or contact:
Solicitor Jim Nichol - 0171 272 8336
or Press Officer Pauline Smith - 01634 388422.
Note this case was eventually referred back to the Court of Appeal by the CCRC and the result is as the update note at the head of this article.
www.slimeylimeyjustice.org