Portia Silenced

Defend the Right to Free Speech!
Censorship and the Portia Campaign

This article was copied from The Marxist, May/June 2000, Vol 8 No 1, after the Police Federation had threatened the service provider for Portia and got our UK site closed down (www.portia.org..uk). This gives the story and the reason why Portia should not be silenced.

The campaign to free Eddie Gilfoyle, wrongly convicted of the murder of his wife Paula has been building ever since his trial in June/July 1993. Following his conviction a list of one hundred irregularities and complaints were presented to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) by Eddie's family.

The investigation for the PCA conducted by the Lancashire Constabulary revealed major irregularities in the conduct of the Merseyside Police investigation into Paula Gilfoyle's death. Amongst the irregularities were:

The fact that several weeks after the garage where Paula's body was found hanging had been searched by a specialist team a so-called ‘practise noose’ was discovered by one of the officers investigating the case. A member of the specialist team is adamant that the rope was not there when the garage was searched originally.

The fact that the statement of a witness who is certain she saw Eddie's wife at a time when, according to the prosecution, he had already killed her, was `scrubbed'.

The fact that a letter that could have helped to disprove the charges against Eddie, which had been handed to the police by his family, had disappeared. The police said that the letter had been lost.

The Inquiry concluded that three Merseyside Police officers should face disciplinary charges and informed, the Home Office that the conviction of Eddie Gilfoyle was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Eddie's defence team was not allowed to present any of the findings of the PCA investigation at his appeal in October 1995. This was because the PCA investigation was considered to be `ongoing' until the Chief Constable of Merseyside had agreed to the charges recommended twelve months before. The appeal was turned down on Friday 20 October. On Monday 23, the Chief Constable agreed the charges.

Subsequently, five years after the original complaints about the conduct of the Merseyside Police force by Eddie's family and three years after the conclusion of the PCA investigation itself, all charges against the three Police Officers were dropped by the Chief Constable.

The Channel Four programme Trial and Error, which was first screened in June 1996, investigated Eddie's conviction. The programme focused on every aspect of the case including the PCA investigation. The programme contributed to Eddie being granted a further appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which will be held in the near future.

It is perhaps the mounting public recognition that everything about Eddie's case smacks of a frame up and the granting of a further appeal which has produced the latest developments in relation to the Campaign.

Towards the end of last year, one of the Police Officers charged as a result of the PCA investigation, began legal proceedings, backed by the Police Federation, against the makers of Trial and Error claiming that his character had been brought into question by the programme. In a case of this nature a person is allowed three years and four months before lodging a complaint. The proceedings against the makers of the programme were started on the final day of this period.

In February this year the solicitors acting for the Police Federation in this matter contacted the Internet server company Namecity threatening to sue them too, if information relating to the Eddie Gilfoyle Campaign was not removed from one of the websites - Portia Campaign - that it provided. The solicitors also demanded that an apology be printed once the information had been removed. In response to the threat Namecity suspended the website.

The Portia Campaign was established in 1971, Initially to campaign against the criminalisation of women who take other people's babies from hospital maternity units. Over the years it has become involved in supporting miscarriage of justice cases; and its website was linked to organisations such as Liberty and Amnesty International. The suspension of the Portia website has potentially serious implications, not only for the Eddie Gilfoyle Campaign, but also for every campaign against a miscarriage of justice that involves the alleged actions of individual police officers, as most cases do.

The police officer involved in this case must have the right, as must any police officer or member of the public, to challenge allegations which they view as unfounded and damaging to their character. However, this right can not be allowed, without challenge, to impede any campaign against a miscarriage of justice in which their actions are subject to question. What the Police Federation's solicitors have done in this case is to demand the removal from the web site of information relating to the Gilfoyle Campaign and further that an apology should be posted in its place.

Clearly, this is to demand that the website acknowledge that what has been said about the role of the officer concerned was/is a lie. To do this would serve to undermine the campaign against Eddie's conviction and could undermine his appeal itself, which is due to be heard shortly. This is clearly unacceptable especially given that the case that the officer is pursuing against Channel Four has not yet come before a court. The implications of this situation are clear. Any website, magazine, newspaper or television report, which publishes information relating to Eddie's case and the campaign for his release, could be threatened with legal action by the Police Federation's solicitors.

Any such challenge would present those challenged with a choice: either submit to the demands of the Police Federation's solicitors or refuse and risk the consequences of the legal action. It remains to be proved as to exactly what the consequences would be, but possibilities would include injunctions closing down magazines or newspapers or at least preliminary court orders for the removal of information relating to Eddie's case; a long running legal battle involving huge costs; heavy fines or even imprisonment for the people concerned.

Given these possibilities it is not surprising that Namecity took the action it did in closing down the website. Many organisations with limited resources would do the same. This is exactly why what has taken place here is de facto censorship and is why it must be challenged now rather than when it becomes 'normal practice' in attempts to undermine campaigns against miscarriages of justice.

TOP