Supreme Court’s judgment in Nunn a “disaster” that reinforced difficulties getting exhibits, says Mark Newby
https://mobile.twitter.com/C4CrimAppeals/status/964528097327566848
Mark Newby wants to go back to where it all began if he wants to truly understand how and why genuine victims aren’t being recognised by the state.
Before delivering the above speech and feeding into the ideologies of all those who were in attendance at the meeting, he should look at those convictions that have been overturned on technicalities, recognise the con artists and wolves in sheep’s clothing and look at how their cases have changed the criminal justice system and indeed legislation.
‘the fundamental problem’ with all those individuals who choose to never admit to their ‘mistakes is that’ they are ‘in a downward spiral’
‘organisations that cannot admit fault in the end will become failing organisations. The easiest answer is to brush it under the carpet or find an excuse for why things went wrong.’
Comment on the Kevin Nunn Disclosure Supreme Court Ruling - Wednesday, 9 July 2014‘The Supreme Court ruled upon the Kevin Nunn case recently when the judges decided prisoners should not retain the same rights concerning disclosure of the evidence as they had pre-trial. Once an individual is convicted they cannot simply request access to documents or forensic samples as they could, had such a request been submitted pre-trial.
This stance by the Supreme Court judges is puzzling me. What they are saying is the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) can be trusted to request any document or forensic sample to be re-tested and re-examined as they have what is known as ‘Section 17 Powers,’ (S.17) to request disclosure of everything should they choose to do so.
At one level this statement is 100% correct, but the Supreme Court judges are well aware of what the reality is. The CCRC will not deploy their powers under S.17 in 99% of the applications made to them for further investigations. They have so many requests for help in re-investigation of possible miscarriages of justice that a case workers sifting process can take many years to be completed and the person in jail and contesting their conviction has almost no opportunity to search for ‘fresh evidence’ capable of casting real doubt about the safety of their conviction.
The CCRC require the applicant to submit compelling fresh evidence before deploying their S.17 powers, the classic circular argument ‘I can only submit fresh evidence if I can obtain new material from the police/CPS that has not been disclosed to me previously.’ The police and CPS won’t accept my requests for fresh material to be made available to me unless I present a compelling argument to the CCRC first.
Innocent people will have no insight into the circumstances surrounding the crime they are convicted of. Therefore, they won’t have any idea about what areas of the evidence it was that police used against them which should be open to questioning its validity. An innocent person will know nothing more than the fact they didn’t do it.
When asked at his 1986 murder trial, are you guilty - “That’s what you’ve got to try to establish”In my own case I’ve had to suggest specific reasons why the silencer evidence was wrong. I also had to set out how I believe the silencer evidence was falsified using snippets of information gleaned from random documents. As more and more material evidence was disclosed to me during the last 28 years (particularly since the 2002 appeal) my arguments got closer and closer to the truth. Multiple police enquiries and 16 years with the CCRC as well as two appeal hearings and a trial, along with tens of thousands of hours hard work reviewing three and a half million pages of case documents and it is only now we know what Essex police concealed about the silencer.
Since 2002 we have had to fight tooth and nail to obtain two pieces of information from police to be disclosed under S.17 by the CCRC and even now the CCRC are unable to locate original documents using their powers under S.17 because they have been ‘mislaid’ by Essex police.
Discovering what the actual truth was has taught me a very valuable lesson. Most of all I have never doubted that justice would prevail no matter what: you never know what’s around the next corner. I feel for Kevin Nunn and all of his supporter’s but the truth will find a way to reveal itself large and so long as you stay strong on your path when a corner comes along the trick is to ensure that you look around every one because around that next bend may be the answer you’ve been looking for.
Do I think disclosure should be automatic on request? No, I don’t, but the hurdle that needs to be jumped should be set very low. In my case it shouldn’t have been necessary for me to wait almost 30 years for the true facts to be discovered by piecing together documents—that seems a long time.
“Wrong doing can only be avoided if those who are not wronged feel the same indignation at it as those who are.” Solon, (c. 638 – 559 BCE)
Jeremy.
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Wednesday, July 09, 2014
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2014/07/comment-on-kevin-nunn-disclosure.htmlStatement from Kevin Nunn”Following the Supreme Court's decision not to force Suffolk Constabulary to release key exhibits for new forensic testing, lifer Kevin Nunn told Inside Justice:
"The Supreme Court ruling is a bitter disappointment to my family, supporters and myself in the long struggle to prove my innocence.
We didn't ask for anything special but just a level playing field for access to forensic samples that if tested with improvements in forensic methods, had a very realistic chance of providing the fresh evidence required in any future appeal process.
This was a missed opportunity for the court to impart some common sense and wisdom particularly towards the retained spermatozoa sample that was given such prominence by the prosecution during the original trial .
This irrational Supreme Court ruling will sadly help conceal the truth in this and many other similar miscarriage cases."
Kevin Nunn
Written 26th June 2014
(without access to Supreme Court Judgement although given in on 18 th June 2014) https://www.insidejustice.co.uk/news/statement-from-kevin-nunn/25Kevin Nunn ruling: a new duty on the CCRC by Jon Robins for The Justice GapExcerpts:
“The defence lawyer James Saunders said that the judgement reversed a position that the CCRC had taken ‘many times when refusing to carry out new scientific tests on the ground that they are speculative’. ‘The CCRC has historically taken the view that until test results have been obtained, it does not have any fresh evidence that could support a reference to the Court of Appeal, as is its purpose under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. Without the evidence CCRC has felt unable to take up the case. Catch 22.’
The solicitor also cited the case of Victor Nealon ‘whose CCRC applications failed because of this very issue and protracted his detention by 10 years’. ‘It is to be hoped that the CCRC and police embrace the Supreme Court reasoning,’ Saunders said. ‘It is inevitable that the number of miscarriages of justice at trial will increase as legal aid for defendants has been cut back and often will not cover a proper examination of the available scientific evidence at trial.’
James Saunders‘
The different and proactive position taken in the US has resulted in hundreds of miscarriages of justice being detected, including death row cases. In about half of those cases, DNA profiling identified the true killer or rapist, and apart from doing justice to the innocent, society has an overwhelming interest in protecting itself from the actual killers and rapists.’
According to Louise Shorter, a number of police forces have been refusing to co-operate with their investigations into alleged miscarriages since March (when the case was heard by the Supreme Court) in an anticipation of the ruling. ‘We call upon all police forces to study the Supreme Court’s judgment and to co-operate as advised with enquiries made by lawyers, investigative journalists and others,’ said Shorter.
‘The decision to refuse the claimant’s request for material in this case was not taken lightly,’ commented a spokesman for Suffolk Constabulary. ‘Today’s Supreme Court judgement supports the view that the correct decisions have been taken in this case.’
Louise Shorter‘The Supreme Court judgement talks about there being finality and that police resources must be directed mostly at new police investigations, not investigating old cases. Whether it is lawyers acting for a prisoner, organisations like Inside Justice or investigative journalists, we are not asking for the police to reinvestigate the case. All we’re doing is asking them to release evidence. In the case of Kevin Nunn, it will have taken far more in terms of police resources to block requests than it would ever have done to have exhibits released and sent off to an independent accredited laboratory. The issue of resources is a red herring.’
https://www.thejusticegap.com/new-dity-ccrtc/Andrew Green‘The judgement in Nunn has at last appeared – available at
http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0175_Judgment.pdfThe application for disclosure of police investigation records and access to exhibits for retesting has been refused. This outcome has been expected, but it’s not particularly helpful about providing guidance as to how we should go about obtaining disclosure or access for testing of exhibits when we need it.
Nunn doesn’t appear to have been a well managed case, and the lack of clarity and precision in the applications made for disclosure / access has led to a lack of clarity in the resulting judgement. At least the UKSC recognises the value of the contributions of helpful individuals and organisations in exposing miscarriages of justice (paragraphs 36, 41). INNOCENT would argue that the continuing obligation of the police and CPS to disclose ought to be different from that defined by statute and the UKSC. We will try to find out what we have to do in practice to progress our cases in which we need disclosure of material not disclosed before conviction, and access to material for re-testing, and provide guidance on this.
https://innocent.org.uk/2016/03/07/kevin-nunn-and-the-mystery-of-the-withheld-sperm-sample/
