Noble Cause Corruption - is where the cause is noble, but the means to achieve it is corrupt. The cause in this case was increasing the conviction rate for sexual offences. Rapists and pedophiles are the targets, and nobody would deny that the objectives are sound. The corruption is that the methods used were certain to convict a proportion of innocent men. Thus, the guarantee of a fair trial under Article 6 went out the window, and the right to challenge a wrongful conviction is in the hands of a Single Judge at the Appeal Court - but the single judges will not let sex cases through. Why? Because the British Government want to maintain the illusion that their justice system works. Meantime, hundreds of men are spending time in prison who should not be there, and because the appeal system is also corrupt (discriminatory), they never get a chance to overturn their conviction.

In this case, the state crucified him. The local police produced evidence at his trial that was guaranteed to convict him, then made sure the local press published details of his conviction so that nobody would believe his revelations about corruption in local government. The so-called forensic evidence turned out to be junk science, a natural feature that was understood in the USA to be just that - had not found its way into UK guidance. The prosecution of course knew all about that, but stayed silent. Presented in court as controversial, what the Crown's expert meant was that US studies did not accord with UK studies at the time. Two months after the trial the UK studies recognised the US studies, hence her testimony would not have been allowed. There is no room in any Courtroom for controversial evidence. Where that is introduced, a Jury is being asked to speculate as to science - where only expert testimony should be allowed. The victim of this injustice would not learn that until three years into his sentence. The CCRC did not tell him about the cases they had referred to the Court of Appeal - and in his case, they turned a blind eye. This is a true story based on official documents. Not to be published until after the subject's appeals in Europe are heard.

His barrister didn't show the jury the accused' diaries, he should have, because the girl's mother reminded the accused to send Valentines cards every year - which she, err, seems to have forgotten to mention to the court.  She also forgot to tell the prosecution about the existence of her own diaries. These diaries reveal that the accused was not alone with the girl as she had claimed. Why do you suppose her mother might hide this information?

The accused was instructed not to venture why the girl should make up her story by his barrister, but of course he has a good idea. Sadly, that cannot be revealed just yet for legal reasons. He did say he could forgive a 15 year old for some kind of unthinking hormone driven revenge for not doing what she had wanted, but not a mature woman - who would have known better. The accused had refused to get together with the girls mother. The girl wanted the accused to get together with her mother. It's an or-else situation and the accused was threatened - which information the defence lawyers failed to introduce - despite instructions to the contrary.

Local newspapers breached a Court Order prohibiting publication, and published mid-trial, which to us seem the most damaging time to publish, to virtually guarantee conviction. Nearly all the local papers published at the same time - in orchestrated fashion - obviously from a shared source; presumably the reporter attending. Is that responsible reporting?

Once they had convicted the victim of this injustice, the Crown tried to prevent him publishing his story. Why would they do that? Fortunately, Judge Cedric Joseph (this was his last case) was persuaded by barrister Michael Harrison, that that would breach the chaps human rights. The Judge agreed, subject to not naming the girl or her mother.

We think that the Crown's reluctance is to do with the way they obtained their conviction. It was based on medical testimony, which itself was based on out of date guidance from the Royal College of Paediatric and Child Health from 1997. New guidance was issued in 2008, just one month after the trial. Why did the Crown not wait the extra month before going to trial? Well, we know the answer to that, the new guidance confirmed that certain internal marks are naturally occurring. The prosecution told the jury (or, rather, allowed their pet witness to say it for them - which amounts to the same thing) that they were supportive of the allegations - which was a deception on the part of the Crown.

The Crown had kept the defence waiting for more than 18 months and delayed matters by refusing to hand back vital computer information that they'd confiscated - claiming they might find pornographic images. Of course the Crown were just making this up and instead of letting the jury know that all of the accused' computers were image free, they refused to confirm the results of their investigations! Normally, a report on confiscated machines is supplied to the defence. Don't you think the jury should have known that this man's computers were clean?

You'll have to wait for the subject's appeals in the ECHR to conclude before this book is published. Maybe then we'll see an official version in 2016/2017? European appeals take 4 years on average, from the date of lodge. But first you have to exhaust any domestic remedy. He has finally, as of February 2013.

This man served nearly four years for a crime he did not commit. If you would like to know more about this developing story, please Contact Us.