Author Topic: Those outside prison fighting one another  (Read 10134 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Those outside prison fighting one another
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2018, 04:29:00 PM »
University innocence projects: where are they now? Asks Jon Robbins founder of the justice gap
Only one conviction has ever been overturned on the strength of a university innocence project’s work in the UK – what’s going on? And what’s next for these projects? https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/apr/27/university-innocence-projects-where-are-they-now


Author: Jon Robins
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/authors/jon-robins

UK’s first specialist miscarriage of justice law firm goes live
https://www.thejusticegap.com/uks-first-specialist-miscarriage-of-justice-law-firm-goes-live/

Emily Bolton and the Criminal Appeals Org
http://www.criminalappeals.org.uk/team/

Dr Michael Naughton blogs Posted on August 25, 2017:
"The need for due diligence on Twitter to avoid getting involved with people who you might not want to if you knew who they really were"
Earlier this month (August 2017), a row erupted on my Twitter timeline of the like I have not previously witnessed amongst what might loosely be called the ‘prison reform community’, comprised of former prisoners, family members of currently serving and former prisoners, prison lawyers, students and academics. It wasn’t the usual handbags at dawn kind of spat that frequently occur on Twitter. This was of a different order, culminating in Alex Cavendish, who went by the handle @PrisonUK, deleting his account altogether and retreating into obscurity.
Over the last two or three years, Alex Cavendish had become a prominent source of information on prison matters, you might say the go-to “twit” on all things prisons. He had upwards of 10K followers, which is huge in this area, with influencing marketing platform Klear deeming him the ‘Top 7% Twitter Influencer in the Prisons community.’
Alex, supplemented his Twitter activity with a very informative prison blog, which has not been deleted, and had also written a series of interesting and insightful articles for The Metro on prison issues, covering such things as votes for prisoners, prison letters, prison riots and rape and sexual assault in prison.
Things came abruptly to a head for Alex, however, when he was outed as a convicted child sex offender whose real name is Mark Standish. The revelation had a polarising effect, with competing perspectives available here and here.
Critics of Standish, the most vocal of which are themselves former prisoners, were adamant that it was not the fact that he was a convicted offender or even sex offender that was the problem. Rather, using a pseudonym was felt to be a deceit, amongst other things, that when discovered raised questions about the veracity of the information that he disseminated.
His refusal to engage or answer questions from his followers when his real identity was exposed and to delete his account entirely, making verification now impossible, only seemed to compound matters for critics by increasing suspicions and feelings of betrayal of trust.
This highlights the need for due diligence on Twitter (and other social media for that matter) to avoid getting involved with (or hurt by) people who you might not want to if you knew who they really were.
Due diligence was not possible with Alex Cavendish because it was not his real name. If you did search his name, which I did, you went round in circles from his Twitter account to his blog to his Metro articles and back again – everything seemed to validate each other but there was no external validation at all.
So, real names are vital so that you can do due diligence and make an informed choice about who you are getting involved with, promoting their agenda, liking their tweets, possibly making friendships and sharing personal information via direct messages, and so forth.
I am uncertain of the law in this area so will not provide the name of the person in this next example, which is the principal motivation for this blog post.
I was recently contacted by a (then) Twitter follower with an invite to contribute to a project that he was involved with.
In terms of due diligence, I looked up the website of the project and saw someone who I recognised and whose work I respect was involved with it so I agreed to meet him at a café across from my office to learn more about it and the part, if any, that I might play.
On my way to meet him, however, I realised that I didn’t know his name – he has a Twitter account in the name of the project – and I didn’t know what he looked like – his picture on the Twitter account is rather abstract and you cannot make out what he looks like.
As I approached the café, a man was already standing outside. I noticed straightaway that the obscure picture on Twitter is not of him but of someone who looks altogether different. I asked him if he was waiting for me and he said he was as he recognised me from my photo on my webpage on the University of Bristol website.
I asked him his name but he declined saying that he didn’t feel comfortable giving me his name, but assuring me that he had good reason not to. I told him that I wasn’t prepared to have a meeting with him unless he told me his name and after some back and forth rather prised his name out of him.
I immediately put his name into Google on my phone to very quickly find that he was convicted of a highly publicised and most pernicious and disturbing gendered crime against a young woman, the like of which would certainly make most (particularly women) want to steer clear of him altogether.
He protested all the time that I was searching and reading what I found, saying such things as he was a miscarriage of justice, that I shouldn’t believe the media on him and his case as it was all biased, that his solicitor was rubbish, etc. Things that I have heard or read hundreds of times as part of my work on alleged wrongful conviction cases.
I have learned, though, that the truly innocent (and I accept that there are always exceptions to every rule but, generally speaking) tend to be very public about their alleged wrongful convictions and happy for any opportunity to tell their version of events to anyone who will listen so that the truth can come out and their names can be cleared.
Think about high profile victims of wrongful convictions such as Gerry Conlon, Paddy Joe Hill, Mike O’Brien and Paul Blackburn, for instance. All convicted for most serious criminal offences – terrorism, murder and child sexual abuse, respectively. They were truly vilified in the media but were never silent or deterred from putting their side of things whenever an opportunity arose.
By comparison, the man that I met with was convicted of a relatively minor offence in a magistrates’ court and did not go to prison. I mentioned the foregoing victims of wrongful convictions to him and suggested that if he truly was an innocent victim of a wrongful conviction that he might want to go public and give his side of the story and let people make their own minds up what they think and who they want to believe. I asked him if was fighting his conviction. He said he was not.
I can report that I will not be contributing to his project, that he did not act upon my suggestions and that he is still entirely anonymous on Twitter. I am somewhat concerned, however, that those already signed up to his project and others engaging with him on Twitter (mainly young women from what I can tell) have no idea who he is or what he was convicted of and might not (I think would not!) want to be involved with him in any way if they did know who he was.
Go careful in the murky world of Twitter and social media, folks – things and people are not always what they might seem. http://michaeljnaughton.com/?page_id=10

The unfortunate silencing of Alex Cavendish
"What obligation does a convicted sex offender have to reveal his true identity? A storm over the issue has arisen in the world of prison blogging.
One of the best criminal justice blogs on the internet is Prison UK. Over the last 3 years it has described the life of prisoners in British prisons with a remarkable and unprecedented vividness. Anyone wanting to know about the realities of prison life should read it. I have even recommended it as preparation for clients expecting to receive a prison sentence: one of the most widely read posts (because it was eventually published in Metro) was about what to pack for somebody who is expecting to go to prison (flip-flops for the showers, earplugs and headphones being top of the list). If you want to know about food in prison, illness in prison, sex in prison, old men in prison, drugs in prison, suicide in prison and death in prison the blog has covered all those subjects superbly.
The writer of the blog called himself Alex Cavendish. On the blog he described himself thus:
“Until 2014 a serving prisoner who had a lot of experience as an Insider, a prisoner who has the job of supporting and advising other prisoners, particularly those who are new to the prison system. He also trained as a peer mentor and worked extensively in prison education departments to help other prisoners improve their literacy skills. He served his sentence in B-cats, C-cats and a D-cat (open prison).”
He was also a prolific tweeter under the name @prisonuk, and was increasingly called upon to comment on prisons in the wider media. One particularly useful thing he has done over the last few months is to document and publicise various prison disturbances and riots that might otherwise have received no, or at least only heavily censored and occasionally misleading official publicity. Assuming, as I do, that he has not just made it all up, the only way he could have done this is by having access to “sources” within the prisons. Presumably these have been either prisoners themselves, prisoners’ families or prison officers.
@prisonuk never revealed what crime it was that got him sent to prison. I have followed him on Twitter and exchanged direct messages with him and I never asked. It seemed to me largely irrelevant. He tweeted and wrote about prison conditions, and mostly, it seemed, blogged from his own experience. If you are going to report on what it is like to serve time in prison then the chances are high that you have quite a few dark secrets. I admit that I was intrigued enough to google his name once or twice: nothing came up about what he was sent to prison for. It occurred to me that he might be writing under a pseudonym.  I suppose, if someone had put me on the spot I would have guessed that his crime was either fraud or sex. As it happened no-one did.
Last week Cavendish was “outed” as a sex offender. His exposer was (on his own description) a prisoner “doing life with a 24 year tariff” with a twitter account called @prison_diaries, also known as “The Lifer.” Cavendish, it turns out, is in fact Mark (although often known as Alex) Standish, who was convicted in 2012 of historic sex offences against a teenage boy. Mr Standish was a teacher at Crookham Court School in the 1980s. The case has an unusual history in that before he was himself convicted, he had informed both the police and and the Department of Education of a culture of child abuse within the school, and had even written a book about it (which I have not read) called Suffer the Little Children. He had also assisted Esther Rantzen who produced a That’s Life expose of the school, and even given evidence for the prosecution at the trial of other teachers who were convicted of abuse.
Many years later, a former pupil called Andy Hudson (he has waived his right to anonymity) complained that Mr Standish had in fact sexually abused him over a period of about a year. There was a trial and Standish was convicted. The judge sentenced him to 4 years in prison. Presumably he was released after serving half his sentence, and was thus able to start his blog in 2014.
Standish attempted to appeal his conviction. In the absence of fresh evidence an appeal against conviction is generally only possible if there has been some legal error at the trial. His argument, as far as I can make it out from press reports, was that it was unfair to prosecute him 20 years after the event. Unsurprisingly that failed. In recent years the Court of Appeal has invariably turned down appeals based on the argument that the mere passage of time has rendered a trial unfair. Despite being described in the press as a “second” appeal, in reality I think that what happened is that he was initially refused leave to appeal on the papers alone by a single judge, and he then exercised his right to argue the point in front of the full court. Far from being a “second” appeal, it may well be that he has not had any appeal at all because he has been refused leave both by a single judge and by the full court.
He now claims that there is in fact fresh evidence and before he left Twitter he announced that he is again intending to appeal against his conviction.
Whether there is anything in this appeal remains to be seen. For the time being he remains a convicted sex offender, and the fact that he concealed his identity while commenting on prison matters has enraged many people.
There is of course an obvious difficulty with an anonymous prisoner, probably a murderer serving a sentence of life imprisonment, taking the moral high ground on an issue like this. Be that as it may, many others – while not necessarily supporting The Lifer’s methods – have been highly critical of what they have described as Standish’s “deception.”
Two of the most critical have also been former prisoners who blog and tweet on penal affairs, Ben Gunn and Penny Mellor. Both are serious voices who deserve attention, both have served time in prison, Gunn for murder (committed when he was a child), Mellor for conspiracy to abduct a child to Ireland. Unlike Standish, and it is very much to their credit, neither has attempted to conceal their identity.
Gunn, who has a well-deserved reputation for blunt and fearless speaking has accused Standish of lying and deceit. He’s not going to like this blog because, as he put it: “The professionals defending the dangerous deceit of @prisonuk is truly vomitous.”
Mellor has gone into more detail on her blog:
In the last 48 hours, a man who represented so many views on prison reform, a trusted voice, feted in certain quarters was ‘outed’ on social media as being a convicted child sex offender. Along with many others I was surprised at this revelation, not that he was a convicted sex offender, but that he had not told anyone what he had been convicted of. It should not matter, however it does, it does for many reasons, some of which are tied up in the complexities of prison politics.
Although Gunn says the problem is not the crime but the deceit, for Mellor the nature of the crime that Standish did not reveal certainly is a problem:
“If you happen to have been convicted of a child sex offence …, you can pretty much guarantee that you are not going to be safe in prison unless you spend all your time in segregation. Even the convicted sex offenders have their pecking order, a rapist being higher up the food chain than the paedophile. The SO who downloads child pornographers being ‘better’ than the child molester etc.
Should you find out that somebody is a convicted child sex offender and you choose to engage with them, you do so at your own peril. Guilty by association. You are literally putting your life at risk. It is considered to be a betrayal of unwritten prison rules if you do befriend a ‘nonce’. However, if you know then at least you can make an informed choice. A choice that was removed on social media because Alex did not tell anyone.
… [A]ny inmate who has been conversing with a ‘nonce’ privately or publicly via social media ran the risk of coming to harm themselves because of those comms. The fact they did not know he was a convicted sex offender is irrelevant in HMP. This is where the betrayal ex con reformists talk about becomes polarised.”
Well I’m sorry, I don’t accept this. It seems to be bringing the dubious ethics of the prison yard into ordinary life. It is presumably because of the unwritten rule that no “decent” murderer or robber should ever associate with a “nonce” that he felt obliged to use a pseudonym in the first place, and that he has now closed his Twitter account. Bad things happen to known sex offenders.
Nor do I accept the deception argument. In what sense is using a pseudonym a “deception”? No-one was deceived into talking to Standish, or if they were they deceived themselves. He never said what his crime was. Anyone who communicated with him – I assume that includes both Gunn and Mellor – and was worried about it, ought to have realised that there was at least a fair chance that he was a sex offender. If he was not a sex offender he could equally well have been a blackmailer or a con-man. Of course, the position would have been different if he had lied about his conviction. As far as I know he never did.
The other point that Mellor makes, what she calls “the crux of the matter” is this:
“Alex claims to have been receiving information from the ‘inside’. This could mean prison officers, governors or inmates with illegal phones. You may all be thinking ‘so what’ – Alex is a convicted sex offender, we have no way of finding out if he also has a SOPO (Sexual Offences Prevention Order) which precludes him from having any contact with minors it may also include other orders relating to whom he is allowed contact with, such as vulnerable people. Alex was in contact with many people, some of whom may well be young people incarcerated in young offenders units, some of whom have anon accounts on Twitter and may well be under 18, some of whom may be on license with a SOPO for sex offence themselves. All of this puts any whistleblowers he was in contact with at risk. Any breach of an order which may or may not be in place allows those in authority to examine his electronics if they believe he is in breach of any conditions that have been placed on him.”
This crux of her argument doesn’t hold up either. As she herself says, “We have no way of finding out ….”
If he is the subject of a sexual offences prevention order, if it prohibits communication with any minors, if he is in contact with them, if they have been using illicit mobile phones, and so on. If he has breached a court order, or a licence condition, then no doubt the authorities will take action but we have no idea whether he has. If he was knowingly communicating by means of illegal phones in prison that would be a serious offence irrespective of the nature of his original crime. It is all a huge pile of speculation.
On his release Standish could have chosen a life of quiet obscurity. Instead he chose to use his prison experience to bring home the scale of the prison crisis to a wider public. Like Ben Gunn and Penny Mellor he was very good at it. If you are going to reform prisons, or even if you just want to know about what goes on inside them, it makes sense to listen to prisoners and ex-prisoners. Most of them will be bad people, or people who have done bad and sometimes terrible things. That is often why they are, or have been, in prison. Prison UK was one of the most articulate ex-prisoners and his silencing is bad news for prison reform. http://barristerblogger.com/2017/08/09/unfortunate-silencing-alex-cavendish/

Campaigner Penny Mellor spared jail for relentless stalking campaign of child abuse victim
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/campaigner-penny-mellor-spared-jail-9060758
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 06:58:29 PM by Stephanie »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Those outside prison fighting one another
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2018, 02:24:10 PM »
Those outside prison fighting one another, will only hurt those inside fighting to get out. The present actions of JENGBA are unacceptable to MOJUK and can only damage prisoners and those supporting them!

If you are supporting someone in prison a victim of 'Joint Enterprise' you are now being forced by JENGBA to make a choice. If MOJUK had to make a choice or advise someone inside which organization might best represent the fight against 'Joint Enterprise' cases it would be to seek help from the newly formed National Joint Enterprise Casework Service (NJEC).

MOJUK fully supports the posting below from INNOCENT



To members of INNOCENT

This is a reminder that our next meeting will be on Wednesday, 7 March, starting at 7.00 pm, in the usual venue the Royal Oak pub in Union Street, Oldham OL1 1EN.

Members of INNOCENT have noticed that another meeting has been arranged in Manchester on the same date and at the same time by Gloria Morrison and Janet Cunliffe, who are members of JENGBA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association). This is the first of a series of meetings arranged to coincide with ours. JENGBA has contacted members of INNOCENT and urged them to attend their meetings rather than ours.

We have asked Gloria and Janet to change the date of their meetings so that INNOCENT members can attend meetings of both organisations if they wish, and do not feel forced into choosing one organisation over another. But they have flatly refused to change their meetings to different dates.

We have been saddened by the discovery that this is a deliberately hostile act. We would like to ignore this childish behaviour and we hope that all INNOCENT members will do so. JENGBA has an excellent record of publicising the terrible and frightening way in which the joint enterprise law is being used to convict innocent people, and we would not wish to prevent members of INNOCENT whose cases involve the use of joint enterprise law from participating in JENGBA's activities. The aims of INNOCENT and the aims of JENGBA are completely compatible.

But although JENGBA offers to help people with their cases, in practice it does not help anyone, and we know of no cases which it has helped to progress in any way. INNOCENT, on the other hand, has a 19 year record of helping with cases, some of which have progressed to successful appeals and the release of innocent prisoners.

Members of INNOCENT know that our meetings are of key importance for our casework. In meetings we exchange information, are brought up to date on cases, clarify the details of what has happened in them, and give support to families. It is essential that members attend meetings if they possibly can. We cannot guarantee to continue supporting cases if the families or supporters concerned stop attending our meetings.

We look forward to seeing you all on 7 March and on subsequent regular meetings of INNOCENT.

Andrew Green
Secretary
INNOCENT  /  <innocent@uk2.net>

challenging miscarriages of justice since 1993

End of Bulletin

Source for this message:
INNOCENT

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gTqrp3Tu3JE
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Those outside prison fighting one another
« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2019, 03:35:05 PM »
I think that document signed by Andrew Green is pathetic.  Talk about trying to have a go at JENGBA and as for accusing them of being deliberately hostile and childish is in itself rather crass.  Green then goes on to glorify INNOCENT as if they were some Godsend organisation.  If the truth be known their success are few and far between in the 19 years they have been operating.

Why am I not surprised that Andrew Green and INNOCENT have joined forces with Billy Middleton's Wrongly Accused Person organisation to form the National Joint Enterprise Casework Service (NJEC).  I fear for true victims of miscarriages of justice as they are being sucked into this vacuum and will ultimately simply become pawns in their pathetic power games.

"Dr Andrew Green was educated at Oxford and Keele and holds a doctorate in criminology from the latter. He became interested in criminal justice following his move to Sheffield in 1989 and in 1993 he founded the organisation INNOCENT. INNOCENT assists people who claim to have been convicted of crimes they did not commit, and their families and supporters, who are its members, and it continues to meet regularly. In 2001 he became a founder of United Against Injustice. In 2012 he was invited by Professor Claire McGourlay to assist with the Innocence Project at the University of Sheffield School of Law. The project has now become the Miscarriages of Justice Review Centre and Andrew holds the post of Lecturer in Clinical Legal Education. http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/training/forrest-conference/forrest-2015/abstracts/when-is-fresh-evidence-fresh-and-true

https://www.legalcheek.com/2016/04/legal-commentator-voices-concerns-over-challenges-facing-university-innocence-projects-in-damning-new-article/

“Andrew Green
May 7 2016 11:13am
I’m Professor Claire McGourlay’s co-director on the Miscarriages of Justice Review Centre at Sheffield University.
I contributed an article to The Justice Gap’s continuing debate on the usefulness of university innocence projects and of the CCRC. I argue that the CCRC’s competence has often come under question, and that many innocence projects are working on cases which have been made more difficult by the CCRC’s own failures to conduct timely and thorough investigations of applicants’ claims.
I argue in favour of mutual respect and more co-operation. My article can be read at http://thejusticegap.com/2016/04/investigative-competence-ccrc-innocence-projects/

Now here
https://www.thejusticegap.com/investigative-competence-ccrc-innocence-projects/
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 01:46:50 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Those outside prison fighting one another
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2019, 06:43:19 PM »
“Andrew Green
May 7 2016 11:13am
I’m Professor Claire McGourlay’s co-director on the Miscarriages of Justice Review Centre at Sheffield University.
I contributed an article to The Justice Gap’s continuing debate on the usefulness of university innocence projects and of the CCRC. I argue that the CCRC’s competence has often come under question, and that many innocence projects are working on cases which have been made more difficult by the CCRC’s own failures to conduct timely and thorough investigations of applicants’ claims.
I argue in favour of mutual respect and more co-operation. My article can be read at http://thejusticegap.com/2016/04/investigative-competence-ccrc-innocence-projects/

Andrew Green says:
October 10, 2016 at 8:31 am
It’s upsetting to see a pic of this tedious ex-cop every time I go to the home page of The Justice Gap. Please replace it with one of the many more interesting images you have available.

https://www.thejusticegap.com/two-trials-three-jailhouse-snitches-four-part-documentary-no-evidence/
« Last Edit: October 28, 2019, 06:54:39 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Those outside prison fighting one another
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2019, 12:19:03 PM »
“Andrew Green
May 7 2016 11:13am
I’m Professor Claire McGourlay’s co-director on the Miscarriages of Justice Review Centre at Sheffield University.
I contributed an article to The Justice Gap’s continuing debate on the usefulness of university innocence projects and of the CCRC. I argue that the CCRC’s competence has often come under question, and that many innocence projects are working on cases which have been made more difficult by the CCRC’s own failures to conduct timely and thorough investigations of applicants’ claims.
I argue in favour of mutual respect and more co-operation. My article can be read at http://thejusticegap.com/2016/04/investigative-competence-ccrc-innocence-projects/

Convicted murderer Mark Alexander’s 2015 published article on The Justice Gap

Headed “We need our innocence projects now more than ever”

The announcement that Innocence Network UK (INUK) had disbanded in September 2014 came as a real shock to those of us on the inside still fighting for justice. There had been no indication to those of us on their waiting list that the organisation was having any problems, so it all seemed rather disappointing and confusing when the news finally reached us.

What had gone wrong, and why would they seemingly give up on us like that?

“The simultaneous curse and blessing of the INUK model is that it relies almost entirely upon student manpower. On one hand, the great advantage of this is that there is an almost endless source of talented young minds in our universities with the dedication and enthusiasm required to plough through the stacks of material in a case. As Dr Andrew Green pointed out on www.thejusticegap.com: ‘No one working under the restrictions of legal aid funding or the budgetary constraints of institutions such as the CCRC is likely to do the detailed work that students are prepared to do.’

“Dennis Eady, of the Cardiff University Innocence Project, has suggested that the breaking up of INUK may ‘provide a timely opportunity for universities to close down their activities’, but I have to disagree. Rather, they should take this opportunity to consider a new approach. We need our innocence projects now more than ever. They play an invaluable role not only in expediting justice, but in shining the spotlight on the prevalence and scale of miscarriages of justice in Britain.


This is an article by Mark Alexander, a prisoner at HMP Gartree. Mark is writing as part of the British Convict Criminology project – set up after a 2011 British Society of Criminology conference by a group of academics. Convict Criminology is a branch of criminology started in the late 1990s by American academics dissatisfied with the absence of a prisoner perspective in research on crime and justice
https://www.thejusticegap.com/we-need-our-innocence-projects-now-more-than-ever/
« Last Edit: November 14, 2019, 12:56:07 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Those outside prison fighting one another
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2019, 12:39:05 PM »
Convicted murderer Mark Alexander’s 2015 published article on The Justice Gap

Headed “We need our innocence projects now more than ever”

The announcement that Innocence Network UK (INUK) had disbanded in September 2014 came as a real shock to those of us on the inside still fighting for justice. There had been no indication to those of us on their waiting list that the organisation was having any problems, so it all seemed rather disappointing and confusing when the news finally reached us.

What had gone wrong, and why would they seemingly give up on us like that?

“The simultaneous curse and blessing of the INUK model is that it relies almost entirely upon student manpower. On one hand, the great advantage of this is that there is an almost endless source of talented young minds in our universities with the dedication and enthusiasm required to plough through the stacks of material in a case. As Dr Andrew Green pointed out on www.thejusticegap.com: ‘No one working under the restrictions of legal aid funding or the budgetary constraints of institutions such as the CCRC is likely to do the detailed work that students are prepared to do.’

“Dennis Eady, of the Cardiff University Innocence Project, has suggested that the breaking up of INUK may ‘provide a timely opportunity for universities to close down their activities’, but I have to disagree. Rather, they should take this opportunity to consider a new approach. We need our innocence projects now more than ever. They play an invaluable role not only in expediting justice, but in shining the spotlight on the prevalence and scale of miscarriages of justice in Britain.


This is an article by Mark Alexander, a prisoner at HMP Gartree. Mark is writing as part of the British Convict Criminology project – set up after a 2011 British Society of Criminology conference by a group of academics. Convict Criminology is a branch of criminology started in the late 1990s by American academics dissatisfied with the absence of a prisoner perspective in research on crime and justice
https://www.thejusticegap.com/we-need-our-innocence-projects-now-more-than-ever/

Professor Julie Price comments at foot of above article:

Julie Price says:
May 13, 2015 at 3:22 pm

Thank you, Mark, for writing such an informed and positive piece.

I have a few thoughts in response:

The concept of a large number of universities working together to try to help individuals overturn wrongful convictions, and at the same time trying to influence criminal appeals policy for the better was, and remains, a fantastic collaborative idea that would be difficult to match. It is only with hindsight that we can offer views on why INUK was unsustainable: it was too dependent on a tiny number of people; it lacked core funding; there was no accountability (any “regulation and governance” was informal) and no democratic mandate for messages sent out in the name of “INUK” ,which arguably led to confusion. Those of us involved in the early years bear some responsibility for not speaking out more loudly when problems arose, and possibly for giving up on the network idea too soon (Cardiff withdrew from INUK in 2010). Michael Naughton will, I’m sure, likewise take responsibility for other aspects of its failure.

However, the main reason for INUK not thriving is arguably that the work that innocence projects were/are doing is simply too difficult. That is no-one’s fault, and is due to the very restrictive statutory appeals system. A decade ago, we thought all that was needed was enthusiastic students and staff, and we’d be looking at dozens of overturned convictions. We had no real appreciation that we would need to also be “campaigners” as well as caseworkers. If we did not start calling for reform, much of our work would be pointless because it had no chance of passing the CCRC hurdle. We also had no idea how difficult it would be to access information and documentation that was key to being productive. The inertia that comes from hitting brick walls is an understandable by-product of this work. Setting aside wider ethical discussions, it is understandable that some projects were unable to make progress.

I think it was right that some universities took the opportunity of INUK folding as a chance to evaluate whether an innocence project (or whatever name they choose) was for them. It forced them to reflect on the difficulties involved in running such a scheme, which are significantly higher and more complex than other clinical legal education schemes, in my view. We can now say that without any embarrassment or attribution of blame.

It is not surprising that INUK folded – the surprise is that it survived for a decade, and that was due principally to the dogged determination and huge investment of time by Michael Naughton.

I think we’d all agree with Mark Alexander that the need for this sort of work is greater now than ever. There are still many universities doing this work. Some now have different names, but their work and the challenges remain essentially the same. I hope that the recent Justice Select Committee recommendations, plus the inevitable post-election legal aid battles will reinvigorate people, with collaborations perhaps happening in less ambitious ways than had been intended with INUK.

I also think it’s important that the INUK Twitter account and website are updated to make it clear that it is no longer a network that speaks for UK innocence projects. I hope that will be done soon in the interests of avoiding understandable confusion over its current status.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2019, 12:56:16 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Those outside prison fighting one another
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2019, 01:10:03 PM »
Professor Julie Price comments at foot of above article:

Julie Price says:
May 13, 2015 at 3:22 pm

Thank you, Mark, for writing such an informed and positive piece.

I have a few thoughts in response:

The concept of a large number of universities working together to try to help individuals overturn wrongful convictions, and at the same time trying to influence criminal appeals policy for the better was, and remains, a fantastic collaborative idea that would be difficult to match. It is only with hindsight that we can offer views on why INUK was unsustainable: it was too dependent on a tiny number of people; it lacked core funding; there was no accountability (any “regulation and governance” was informal) and no democratic mandate for messages sent out in the name of “INUK” ,which arguably led to confusion. Those of us involved in the early years bear some responsibility for not speaking out more loudly when problems arose, and possibly for giving up on the network idea too soon (Cardiff withdrew from INUK in 2010). Michael Naughton will, I’m sure, likewise take responsibility for other aspects of its failure.

However, the main reason for INUK not thriving is arguably that the work that innocence projects were/are doing is simply too difficult. That is no-one’s fault, and is due to the very restrictive statutory appeals system. A decade ago, we thought all that was needed was enthusiastic students and staff, and we’d be looking at dozens of overturned convictions. We had no real appreciation that we would need to also be “campaigners” as well as caseworkers. If we did not start calling for reform, much of our work would be pointless because it had no chance of passing the CCRC hurdle. We also had no idea how difficult it would be to access information and documentation that was key to being productive. The inertia that comes from hitting brick walls is an understandable by-product of this work. Setting aside wider ethical discussions, it is understandable that some projects were unable to make progress.

I think it was right that some universities took the opportunity of INUK folding as a chance to evaluate whether an innocence project (or whatever name they choose) was for them. It forced them to reflect on the difficulties involved in running such a scheme, which are significantly higher and more complex than other clinical legal education schemes, in my view. We can now say that without any embarrassment or attribution of blame.

It is not surprising that INUK folded – the surprise is that it survived for a decade, and that was due principally to the dogged determination and huge investment of time by Michael Naughton.

I think we’d all agree with Mark Alexander that the need for this sort of work is greater now than ever. There are still many universities doing this work. Some now have different names, but their work and the challenges remain essentially the same. I hope that the recent Justice Select Committee recommendations, plus the inevitable post-election legal aid battles will reinvigorate people, with collaborations perhaps happening in less ambitious ways than had been intended with INUK.

I also think it’s important that the INUK Twitter account and website are updated to make it clear that it is no longer a network that speaks for UK innocence projects. I hope that will be done soon in the interests of avoiding understandable confusion over its current status.


Mark Alexander was convicted of murdering his 70 year old ‘Egyptian-born retired university lecturer father, also known as Sami Yacoub El-Kayoubi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11259049

A short essay by Mark Alexander on alternatives to imprisonment appears in this new book, 'Crime and Consequence', which was launched at the Royal Festival Hall 30th October 2019
https://www.koestlerarts.org.uk/shop/books/crime-and-consequence-2/

THE CASE FOR DECRIMINALISATION by Mark Alexander

“Man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains - Rousseau

Reconceptualising crime
“What is ‘crime’? Our immediate response might be to define it in accordance with what we would consider to be immoral, wrong or harmful to others. Yet there are many things which meet these criteria that aren’t in fact against the law (extra-marital affairs or some forms of air pollution might be good examples). On closer inspection, we find that crimes ‘are not “given” or “natural” categories’ at all, but rather ‘vary from place to place and from time to time’ with astonishing diversity between different cultures and jurisdictions (Garland, 1990). That other countries criminalise heresy, homosexuality and abortion reminds us that ‘crime’ is a social construct, defined by politicians and enforced by judges.
British politics has tended to fetishize crime to such an extent over recent decades that it has become the ‘preferred context for governance’ (Garland, 1996). As politicians ‘scramble to appease an angry and frightened constituency that they may have helped to create in the first place’, our Parliament has succumbed to a fever of hyperactive legislation (Loader, 2006). Between 1997 and 2015, for example, more than 5,373 new ‘crimes’ were enacted (Loader, 2006; Aitken and Macshane, 2015). But this ‘war on crime’ is gravely, perhaps knowingly and cynically, misconceived. Since 1995, overall crime – both here (Home Office, 2017) and across Europe (National Audit Office, 2012) has been steadily falling every year, and yet two-thirds of the public remain convinced that it is on the rise (National Audit Office, 2012). Academics have termed this anomaly the ‘reassurance gap’, a gap that would seem easy enough to plug if only parliamentarians and the mass media focused their attention upon facts rather than buying into the demonising rhetoric of ‘law and order’.
The outcome of all this legislation, however, has been a 70% increase in our prison population – more than two-thirds of whom haven’t committed violent crimes. For more serious offences like murder, the average sentence has almost doubled since 2003 (Alex Hewson and Emily Knight, 2018).
None of this is sensible or sustainable in the long run. When one considers the question ‘What should happen to people who commit criminal offences?’, our first response should be that there are simply too many ‘crimes’. We can only reverse this punitive tide through a policy of decriminalisation, recognising that we have become too quick to label people – particularly young people – as ‘criminal’. Generating a vast cohort of disaffected and alienated individuals seems manifestly counter-productive (David Downes, 1992). We desperately need to pause to consider what good this kind of mass stigmatisation actually does for our society as a whole. Adapting John Stuart Mill’s formulation, the state should only criminalise those acts capable of causing serious harm to others (John Stuart Mill, 2010). Any intervention beyond this represents an illegitimate incursion upon liberal values.
Our second reaction ought to be that – of the remaining crimes that meet Mill’s test – far too many are punishable by imprisonment. In the majority of cases, non-custodial alternatives would be more appropriate. When we consider that a two-year community order costs the same as a six-week prison sentence, we can start to appreciate just how much more can be achieved with the limited resources available to us (National Audit Office, 2012). The Netherlands and Estonia have achieved 43% and 35% reductions in their respective prison populations between 2005 and 2015 through depenalisation projects of this kind (Council of Europe, 2016), while overall crime rates continue falling in both countries (Cynthia Tavares and Geoffrey Thomas, 2010). Latvia’s recent introduction of electronic monitoring as an alternative to imprisonment has contributed to a similar 29% drop over the same period, whilst across the Atlantic, half of all American states have closed entire prisons down (Garland et al., 2014) – more than 20 in Michigan alone (Clear and Schrantz, 2011) – simply by abolishing the ‘three-strike’ rule or eliminating mandatory minimum terms. Tens of millions of dollars in state expenditure have been saved and countless lives redeemed.
Locking people up should be our last resort when all else has failed, not a knee-jerk reaction.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2019, 01:27:10 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Those outside prison fighting one another
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2019, 11:14:59 AM »
Convicted murderer Mark Alexander’s 2015 published article on The Justice Gap

Headed “We need our innocence projects now more than ever”

The announcement that Innocence Network UK (INUK) had disbanded in September 2014 came as a real shock to those of us on the inside still fighting for justice. There had been no indication to those of us on their waiting list that the organisation was having any problems, so it all seemed rather disappointing and confusing when the news finally reached us.

What had gone wrong, and why would they seemingly give up on us like that?

What had gone wrong” innocence Fraud

and why would they seemingly give up on us like that” because they recognised you were another chancer jumping on the bandwagon
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Those outside prison fighting one another
« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2020, 10:24:08 AM »
Those outside prison fighting one another, will only hurt those inside fighting to get out. The present actions of JENGBA are unacceptable to MOJUK and can only damage prisoners and those supporting them!

If you are supporting someone in prison a victim of 'Joint Enterprise' you are now being forced by JENGBA to make a choice. If MOJUK had to make a choice or advise someone inside which organization might best represent the fight against 'Joint Enterprise' cases it would be to seek help from the newly formed National Joint Enterprise Casework Service (NJEC).

MOJUK fully supports the posting below from INNOCENT



To members of INNOCENT

This is a reminder that our next meeting will be on Wednesday, 7 March, starting at 7.00 pm, in the usual venue the Royal Oak pub in Union Street, Oldham OL1 1EN.

Members of INNOCENT have noticed that another meeting has been arranged in Manchester on the same date and at the same time by Gloria Morrison and Janet Cunliffe, who are members of JENGBA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association). This is the first of a series of meetings arranged to coincide with ours. JENGBA has contacted members of INNOCENT and urged them to attend their meetings rather than ours.

We have asked Gloria and Janet to change the date of their meetings so that INNOCENT members can attend meetings of both organisations if they wish, and do not feel forced into choosing one organisation over another. But they have flatly refused to change their meetings to different dates.

We have been saddened by the discovery that this is a deliberately hostile act. We would like to ignore this childish behaviour and we hope that all INNOCENT members will do so. JENGBA has an excellent record of publicising the terrible and frightening way in which the joint enterprise law is being used to convict innocent people, and we would not wish to prevent members of INNOCENT whose cases involve the use of joint enterprise law from participating in JENGBA's activities. The aims of INNOCENT and the aims of JENGBA are completely compatible.

But although JENGBA offers to help people with their cases, in practice it does not help anyone, and we know of no cases which it has helped to progress in any way. INNOCENT, on the other hand, has a 19 year record of helping with cases, some of which have progressed to successful appeals and the release of innocent prisoners.

Members of INNOCENT know that our meetings are of key importance for our casework. In meetings we exchange information, are brought up to date on cases, clarify the details of what has happened in them, and give support to families. It is essential that members attend meetings if they possibly can. We cannot guarantee to continue supporting cases if the families or supporters concerned stop attending our meetings.

We look forward to seeing you all on 7 March and on subsequent regular meetings of INNOCENT.

Andrew Green
Secretary
INNOCENT  /  <innocent@uk2.net>

challenging miscarriages of justice since 1993

End of Bulletin

Source for this message:
INNOCENT

Baroness Newlove, whose husband was battered to death in front of his own family, asks why nobody told her that his killer is free to swagger around her home town - 22nd Feb 2020
Excerpt:
For this week they learnt that for the past 18 months, one of the youths responsible for Garry's death, Jordan Cunliffe, now 28, has been held at an open prison in preparation for his imminent release on parole.

Unbeknown to Lady Newlove, he has been free to wander the streets of Warrington, where the family, including the girls' 87-year-old grandmother, still live.

Garry Newlove, who had survived stomach cancer when he was 32, had rushed out of the family home in Warrington, Cheshire, to try to stop the youths vandalising his wife's car

Allowed out to work and visit his own family unsupervised at weekends, he could have walked past them in the street or bumped into them in a shop. No one had told them this was

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8031135/Baroness-Newlove-husband-battered-death-family.html


Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
She continues to condemn a blind boy that didn’t lay a finger on her husband too. She cares nothing for victims or the innocent http://jointenterprise.co

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart exclamation
@Jliffe
Baroness Newlove, whose husband was NOT battered to death in front of his own family... Swagger around her hone town ?  Which one? Pimlico paid for by the taxpayer? or Warrington where she doesn’t live? https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8031135/Baroness-Newlove-husband-battered-death-family.html

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart exclamation
@Jliffe
Feb 22
legal PA??? WHEN #BaronessNewlove, making it up as she goes along. I have the judges summing up and 12 boxes of evidence. If you doubt me I’ll give you the lot Money Money Money  https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8031135/Baroness-Newlove-husband-battered-death-family.html

Dr Sally Halsall
@Mum4justice1966
Exactly, Newlove used her status to get revenge on a child who did nothing to contribute to the murder and even now after he has served his sentence she continues to seek vengeance by using her status to influence Judges and through newspapers who no doubt continue to pay her ££ https://twitter.com/karen14571296/status/1231553963515940866

Dr Sally Halsall
@Mum4justice1966
PART EIGHT Is Barronness Newlove really that vexacious? or is it all about the publicity, money and status? Has anyone tried to find out from those who really matter eg. Victim Support volunteers, what actual good she has done on her own credit?

Dr Sally Halsall
@Mum4justice1966
PART NINE Was she respected by Victim Support for her work or secretly disliked? Why did she ignore the plight of those wrongfully accused of sex offences, after all they are victims too?

(‘JENGbA was represented by Dean Kingham of Swain & Co Solicitors and Matt Stanbury of Garden Court North Chambers. Guilty Until Proven Innocent (Biteback, 2018) featured the case of Alex Henry who was diagnosed with autism year after he was sentenced to a minimum of 19 years for being involved in a 47 second affray. [/i]https://www.thejusticegap.com/cps-revises-joint-enterprise-guidance-to-lessen-risk-to-young-and-those-with-autism/

Dr Sally Halsall
@Mum4justice1966
A BILL FOR HER BROTHER I thought it was game over when my son Alex Henry's appeal failed.Lady Hallet & Lord Thomas allowed the CPS to argue that I used my PhD to 'coach' my son to be autistic.But @CharlMHenry
said 'don't worry mum, I have a plan' & yesterday she launched her Bill)

Daily Mail U.K.
@DailyMailUK
Baroness Newlove, whose husband was battered to death in front of his own family, asks why nobody told her that his killer is free to swagger around her home town https://trib.al/Q5McHSx

karen
@karen14571296
Lies adapted for her own purpose would the mail talk to Jordan’s mum or him to get a balanced view have they invited his mum for a tv debate one sided journalism destroying people’s lives whilst manipulative money making self serving “victims wife” gets paid shame on mail

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
http://PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines.absloute BULLSHIT. #BaronessNewlove knows damn well Jordan Cunliffe has NEVER been visiting family or friends in Warrington let alone walking the streets.⁦
@APPGMJ
@VeraBaird

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
@deankingham
@YasminPrisonLaw
 I think the parole board need to be informed of these inaccurate articles written by HN.
@JENGbA
 Also
@VeraBaird as victims commissioner surely it is wrong for a victims bereaved family to misinform the press?

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
@LucyMPowell
 Are members of the House of Lords allowed to tell lies on National Television and in newspapers?
@DavidLammy
@charlotte2153
@lisanandy
@BarrySheerman
@CrispinBlunt
@VeraBaird

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
She continues to condemn a blind boy that didn’t lay a finger on her husband too. She cares nothing for victims or the innocent http://jointenterprise.co


« Last Edit: May 14, 2020, 06:47:43 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Those outside prison fighting one another
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2020, 12:09:03 PM »

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
She continues to condemn a blind boy that didn’t lay a finger on her husband too. She cares nothing for victims or the innocent http://jointenterprise.co

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart exclamation
@Jliffe
Baroness Newlove, whose husband was NOT battered to death in front of his own family... Swagger around her hone town ?  Which one? Pimlico paid for by the taxpayer? or Warrington where she doesn’t live? https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8031135/Baroness-Newlove-husband-battered-death-family.html

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart exclamation
@Jliffe
Feb 22
legal PA??? WHEN #BaronessNewlove, making it up as she goes along. I have the judges summing up and 12 boxes of evidence. If you doubt me I’ll give you the lot Money Money Money  https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8031135/Baroness-Newlove-husband-battered-death-family.html

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
@deankingham
@YasminPrisonLaw
 I think the parole board need to be informed of these inaccurate articles written by HN.
@JENGbA
 Also
@VeraBaird as victims commissioner surely it is wrong for a victims bereaved family to misinform the press?

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
@LucyMPowell
 Are members of the House of Lords allowed to tell lies on National Television and in newspapers?
@DavidLammy
@charlotte2153
@lisanandy
@BarrySheerman
@CrispinBlunt
@VeraBaird


Victoria Derbyshire
@VictoriaLIVE

“I felt physically sick”

Ex-Victims’ Commissioner Baroness Newlove says she was not told one of the men convicted of killing her husband was given permission to walk around her home town in preparation for his release

http://bbc.in/3bX8GBz #VictoriaLIVE

https://mobile.twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/1231888997187801088


Garry Newlove killer loses sentence appeal due to 'lack of remorse'

‘A man who kicked to death a father-of-three outside his home has failed to have his sentence cut after failing to show "true remorse".
Jordan Cunliffe was 16 when he was jailed in 2008 for the murder of Garry Newlove in Warrington, Cheshire.
Cunliffe's lawyers argued he should have his 12-year minimum term cut due to his "exemplary" behaviour in prison.
But a High Court judge rejected the application as he still denies his involvement in Mr Newlove's murder.
Cunliffe's minimum sentence will expire in August but he will only be freed once the Parole Board is convinced that he poses no serious danger to society.
Mr Newlove, a 47-year-old salesman, was killed when he confronted a gang of youths that had vandalised his wife's car in August 2007.
During the attack, he was kicked "like a football" in front of his daughters.
Cunliffe, Adam Swellings and Stephen Sorton were jointly convicted of his murder in 2008 under joint enterprise legislation which allows a group to be prosecuted for murder when it cannot be proved which individual inflicted the fatal blow.
Cunliffe, who suffers from an eye condition which means he has been registered blind, was ordered to serve at least 12 years behind bars.
His lawyers argued in court that his sentence should be cut due to his "exceptional and unforeseen" progress in prison including passing GCSE maths and achieving a bronze Duke of Edinburgh award.
But Mr Justice Spencer said that, while the 27-year-old "has demonstrated empathy in general terms, he still denies participating in the attack on Mr Newlove".
"The absence of true remorse and the complete lack of an acceptance of any responsibility for the part he played in the murder is an important negative factor, although not conclusive in itself.
"The process of parole will have to take its course once Cunliffe has served the minimum term set by the trial judge."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-47857973


“Dismissing his case, Judge Sir Brian Leveson said there was "ample evidence" Cunliffe was part of the 2007 attack.
Sir Brian, who sat with Mr Justice William Davis, said: "Even if the first blow struck... was the fatal blow, there was ample evidence on which to conclude that Jordan Cunliffe was party to the joint enterprise at that stage."
The judge added: "The evidence as a whole showed that he was participating throughout the incident involving Mr Newlove."
Joint enterprise allows the prosecution of members of a group or gang for murder when it cannot be proved which member of the group inflicted the fatal blow.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/case-blind-15-year-old-16170951


THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
(SIR BRIAN LEVESON)
MR JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS
---------------------
Between :
JORDAN CUNLIFFE
- and -
CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION

48. “.......The CCRC was entitled to take account, in particular, of the nature of the defence run at trial (which was roundly rejected by the jury), the evidence of eye witnesses as to Jordan Cunliffe’s proximity to the attack on Mr Newlove, the evidence of the witnesses who gave an account of incriminating remarks made by Jordan Cunliffe immediately after the incident and the evidence of Jordan Cunliffe’s association on an earlier occasion with similar episodes of violence.

49. Taking all those matters into account, it is clear that the conclusion that no substantial injustice could be demonstrated was fully open to the CCRC. One matter of particular significance is that the nature of the act which was intended to cause really serious harm and which in due course led to Mr Newlove’s death was overwhelmingly likely to have been a kick with a shod foot. The circumstances of the attack on Mr Newlove and the nature of Jordan Cunliffe’s participation in the attack (even taken at its lowest) indicate very strongly that, had the jury considered whether, at the time of the attack, he intended that others should cause really serious harm, it would have found that this was exactly what he intended.

The facts here were very different. Jordan Cunliffe’s case was that he was not present at any stage of the attack on Mr Newlove. Thus, the issue raised in Childs and Price did not arise on his case. On the prosecution case he was present throughout and, so the prosecution said, party to the joint enterprise throughout. Even if the first blow struck (probably by Sorton) was the fatal blow, there was ample evidence on which to conclude that Jordan Cunliffe was party to the joint enterprise at that stage.

55. Mr Weatherby submitted that there was nothing in the evidence to show that Jordan Cunliffe was a participant at the time of the fatal blow. This submission is untenable. The witnesses Domville and Bate placed him with the group at the outset. Tracey Cassidy and Zoe Newlove described the actions of the group of which Jordan Cunliffe was a part. The evidence as a whole showed that he was participating throughout the incident involving Mr Newlove.
http://prisons.org.uk/cunliffevCCRC.pdf
« Last Edit: February 24, 2020, 12:48:25 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Those outside prison fighting one another
« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2020, 11:42:44 AM »
Baroness Newlove, whose husband was battered to death in front of his own family, asks why nobody told her that his killer is free to swagger around her home town - 22nd Feb 2020
Excerpt:
For this week they learnt that for the past 18 months, one of the youths responsible for Garry's death, Jordan Cunliffe, now 28, has been held at an open prison in preparation for his imminent release on parole.

Unbeknown to Lady Newlove, he has been free to wander the streets of Warrington, where the family, including the girls' 87-year-old grandmother, still live.

Garry Newlove, who had survived stomach cancer when he was 32, had rushed out of the family home in Warrington, Cheshire, to try to stop the youths vandalising his wife's car

Allowed out to work and visit his own family unsupervised at weekends, he could have walked past them in the street or bumped into them in a shop. No one had told them this was

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8031135/Baroness-Newlove-husband-battered-death-family.html


Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
She continues to condemn a blind boy that didn’t lay a finger on her husband too. She cares nothing for victims or the innocent http://jointenterprise.co

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart exclamation
@Jliffe
Baroness Newlove, whose husband was NOT battered to death in front of his own family... Swagger around her hone town ?  Which one? Pimlico paid for by the taxpayer? or Warrington where she doesn’t live? https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8031135/Baroness-Newlove-husband-battered-death-family.html

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart exclamation
@Jliffe
Feb 22
legal PA??? WHEN #BaronessNewlove, making it up as she goes along. I have the judges summing up and 12 boxes of evidence. If you doubt me I’ll give you the lot Money Money Money  https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8031135/Baroness-Newlove-husband-battered-death-family.html

Dr Sally Halsall
@Mum4justice1966
Exactly, Newlove used her status to get revenge on a child who did nothing to contribute to the murder and even now after he has served his sentence she continues to seek vengeance by using her status to influence Judges and through newspapers who no doubt continue to pay her ££
https://twitter.com/karen14571296/status/1231553963515940866

Dr Sally Halsall
@Mum4justice1966
PART EIGHT Is Barronness Newlove really that vexacious? or is it all about the publicity, money and status? Has anyone tried to find out from those who really matter eg. Victim Support volunteers, what actual good she has done on her own credit?


Dr Sally Halsall
@Mum4justice1966
PART NINE Was she respected by Victim Support for her work or secretly disliked? Why did she ignore the plight of those wrongfully accused of sex offences, after all they are victims too?


(‘JENGbA was represented by Dean Kingham of Swain & Co Solicitors and Matt Stanbury of Garden Court North Chambers. Guilty Until Proven Innocent (Biteback, 2018) featured the case of Alex Henry who was diagnosed with autism year after he was sentenced to a minimum of 19 years for being involved in a 47 second affray. [/i]https://www.thejusticegap.com/cps-revises-joint-enterprise-guidance-to-lessen-risk-to-young-and-those-with-autism/

Dr Sally Halsall
@Mum4justice1966
A BILL FOR HER BROTHER I thought it was game over when my son Alex Henry's appeal failed.Lady Hallet & Lord Thomas allowed the CPS to argue that I used my PhD to 'coach' my son to be autistic.But @CharlMHenry
said 'don't worry mum, I have a plan' & yesterday she launched her Bill)

Daily Mail U.K.
@DailyMailUK
Baroness Newlove, whose husband was battered to death in front of his own family, asks why nobody told her that his killer is free to swagger around her home town https://trib.al/Q5McHSx

karen
@karen14571296
Lies adapted for her own purpose would the mail talk to Jordan’s mum or him to get a balanced view have they invited his mum for a tv debate one sided journalism destroying people’s lives whilst manipulative money making self serving “victims wife” gets paid shame on mail

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
http://PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines.absloute BULLSHIT. #BaronessNewlove knows damn well Jordan Cunliffe has NEVER been visiting family or friends in Warrington let alone walking the streets.⁦
@APPGMJ
@VeraBaird

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
@deankingham
@YasminPrisonLaw
 I think the parole board need to be informed of these inaccurate articles written by HN.
@JENGbA
 Also
@VeraBaird as victims commissioner surely it is wrong for a victims bereaved family to misinform the press?

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
@LucyMPowell
 Are members of the House of Lords allowed to tell lies on National Television and in newspapers?
@DavidLammy
@charlotte2153
@lisanandy
@BarrySheerman
@CrispinBlunt
@VeraBaird

Jan Cunliffe @JENGbAHeart
@Jliffe
She continues to condemn a blind boy that didn’t lay a finger on her husband too. She cares nothing for victims or the innocent http://jointenterprise.co


Glyn Maddocks Retweeted
Carmelite Chambers
@carmeliteuk
May 1
Felicity Gerry QC has drafted a Petition for Mercy in the case of Alex Henry, a young autistic man convicted of pre-Jogee joint enterprise murder. Read about this important development here: https://carmelitechambers.co.uk/news/petition-mercy-filed-case-alex-henry


https://mobile.twitter.com/carmeliteuk/status/1256215051884789760

Copy of petition here https://www.carmelitechambers.co.uk/sites/default/files/2020-04/Alex%20Henry%20PETITION_0.pdf

At para 9 it states:

In submitting this petition, Alex acknowledges that the deceased was murdered by his co- accused and the deceased’s family have suffered greatly from that crime. Alex also accepts that knife crime generally is an issue of public concern. However, there is also significant public concern in relation to miscarriages of justice.

But no mention of innocence fraud ?

Para 10 states:

There is an ongoing All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Miscarriages of Justice “to examine the structural problems within the criminal justice system which result in miscarriages of justice and to provide a forum from which to improve access to justice for those who have been wrongly convicted.” In the 2017/18 report Barry Sheerman MP, Chair of the APPG on Miscarriages of Justice, said: ‘Miscarriages of justice have a truly devastating consequence for those who are convicted. It is vital the state does everything it can to prevent them from occurring in the first place. When miscarriages do happen, the state has to ensure there are quick and effective mechanisms in place to correct them. Currently those obligations aren’t being met.’

&

Para 11

Her Majesty will be aware that the Countess of Wessex has been the National Autistic Society's Royal patron since August 2003 and that she took over this role from The Princess Royal.5 The National Autistic Society champions the rights of people with autism and aims to ensure that they receive quality services.6 The National Autism Society campaigned for an Autism Act to make new legal duties to provide adult autism services in England. The Autism Act received royal assent on the 12th of November 2009. The Act provides for a Government strategy for improving services for autistic adults. There is therefore a strategy available for the relevant local authority which would be applicable to Alex on his release.

August 2017
“In March 2014, Henry, then 20, was convicted of murder under the joint enterprise law after his friend, Cameron Ferguson, then 19, fatally stabbed Taqui Khezihi, 21, in West Ealing, London.
Ferguson pleaded guilty to murder and was jailed for 22 years. Henry was found guilty by association after it was argued he could have “foreseen” the knife could be used to cause death or harm. Henry maintains he did not know Ferguson had a knife.
After he was jailed, Henry was diagnosed with autism. His family argued his disorder means he could not have known the intentions of others involved in the fatal street fight and should not have been convicted.
The new evidence prompted an appeal. It was rejected on Friday based on the “credibility” of his autism diagnosis.
https://www.rt.com/uk/399568-alex-henry-joint-enterprise/

Jon Robins 2019 - The Justice Trap - It could be you for Bylinetimes
Excerpts:
Alex Henry had a troubled past. He dropped out of school and through his teenage years came into contact with numerous agencies including the local CAMHS, the child and adolescent mental health service, family therapists and social workers. All four boys had convictions relating to knives.

What followed was a moment of stupidity that left one young person dead and ruined the lives of others. The facts are disputed.

On Henry’s account, he saw a friend in trouble. As he approached, he claimed to have picked up Grant-Murray’s dropped mobile, thrown it at one of the other group and attempted to punch another. That, he claimed, was the extent of his involvement. Bourhane claimed ‘the white boy’ (Henry) had ‘a shiny object’ in his hand and another told the police it was a knife but he was not so confident at trial.

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/03/22/the-justice-trap-joint-enterprise/
« Last Edit: May 14, 2020, 06:47:19 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Those outside prison fighting one another
« Reply #26 on: May 14, 2020, 06:53:34 PM »
Baroness Newlove, whose husband was battered to death in front of his own family, asks why nobody told her that his killer is free to swagger around her home town - 22nd Feb 2020
Excerpt:
For this week they learnt that for the past 18 months, one of the youths responsible for Garry's death, Jordan Cunliffe, now 28, has been held at an open prison in preparation for his imminent release on parole.
Unbeknown to Lady Newlove, he has been free to wander the streets of Warrington, where the family, including the girls' 87-year-old grandmother, still live.
Garry Newlove, who had survived stomach cancer when he was 32, had rushed out of the family home in Warrington, Cheshire, to try to stop the youths vandalising his wife's car
Allowed out to work and visit his own family unsupervised at weekends, he could have walked past them in the street or bumped into them in a shop. No one had told them this was

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8031135/Baroness-Newlove-husband-battered-death-family.html

Widow's fury as thug who killed dad-of-three Garry Newlove in murder that shocked Britain boozes in his cell to celebrate potential prison release
”The widow of Garry Newlove spoke of her fury yesterday after one of the yobs who beat him to death held a party in his prison cell to celebrate his impending release.
Jordan Cunliffe threw a drunken bash in an open prison just days after a Parole Board hearing was told he should be freed.
He was 16 when he and two other teenagers attacked Mr Newlove, 47, laughing as they drunkenly punched and kicked the father of three after he reprimanded them for vandalising cars outside his home in Warrington, Cheshire, in 2007.
Cunliffe, 28, was jailed for life for murder along with two other boys after Mr Newlove died three days later.
Yesterday it emerged guards at the open prison where Cunliffe was being held in preparation for his release had to break up a party he threw to celebrate his sentence coming to an end.
They were alerted after complaints about the noise coming from his cell, where up to eight inmates were drinking alcohol and playing computer games.
When Cunliffe refused to be breathalysed, the Parole Board changed its mind about recommending his release and he was transferred to a closed prison.
But yesterday it emerged that the killer is to be transferred back to open conditions and could apply for parole again as early as the summer.
The development has disgusted his victim’s widow, Helen Newlove, who said it felt like Cunliffe was ‘laughing’ at her husband’s death all over again.
Baroness Newlove – who was made a peer in 2010 following her campaign work on youth crime and later became the Victims’ Commissioner – said: ‘It’s absolutely disgusting.
‘How is he able to have a party in prison with alcohol? It beggars belief. 'Cunliffe was a huge instigator in Garry’s death. It feels like he is laughing over Garry’s body all over again.
‘Now he is going back to open conditions, it is a joke. The reports to the Parole Board were unbelievable, saying what a shining example he is.‘But alcohol was a major factor in Garry’s death – he isn’t exactly showing remorse is he? I am absolutely livid.’Yesterday a source said Cunliffe’s party had only scuppered his release in the short term as he will be eligible again for consideration for release soon. The source added: ‘He had a party on December 20 after his Parole Board hearing on December 17. 'He felt it had gone well, offender management reports all recommending his release, and he thought he would be freed but he blew it with the party.
‘There were six to eight people in his cell drinking alcohol, playing Xbox games and there were complaints about the noise.
‘Cunliffe refused to be breathalysed, whereas a couple of other inmates complied and they tested positive. After that the Parole Board met and decided to change their recommendation for release because they felt his risk factor had increased.’
Mr Newlove’s death shocked the nation and became a symbol of ‘Broken Britain’.
Cunliffe was sentenced to life with a recommended minimum terms of 12 years with Stephen Sorton, 17 and Adam Swellings, 19, following a trial at Chester Crown Court in January 2008.
A Parole Board spokesman said it had recommended Cunliffe is ‘suitable for a move to an open conditions prison’. They added: ‘This is a recommendation only and the Ministry of Justice will now consider the advice and make the final decision.
‘A review takes place with extreme care and we will never release any prisoner if it is determined they still pose a risk to the public.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8313177/Widows-fury-killer-Garry-Newlove-boozes-cell-celebrate-potential-prison-release.html

Garry Newlove murder: Killer Jordan Cunliffe 'held party in prison cell'
“A murderer will not be freed from prison after reportedly hosting an alcohol-fuelled party in his cell to celebrate his potential release.
Jordan Cunliffe was 16 when he was jailed for killing Garry Newlove in Warrington, Cheshire, in 2007.
A decision on whether to release the 28-year-old was adjourned after an "incident" at an open prison, the Parole Board said.
Mr Newlove's widow said she had been left feeling "sick to her stomach".
Salesman Mr Newlove, 47, was killed when he confronted a drunken gang of youths that had vandalised his wife's car in August 2007.
Cunliffe was given a life sentence after being convicted under the law of joint enterprise and ordered to serve at least 12 years behind bars when he was jailed in 2008.
A psychologist, probation officer and prison official supported his release at a Parole Board hearing in December.
But, according to a summary of the panel's decision, their backing was withdrawn following the "incident" at the open prison where he was being held.
Cunliffe has since returned to closed conditions with a recommendation that he could go back to an open prison to undertake "additional training", the report added.https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-52662259

Man part of gang who killed dad-of-three has release hopes dashed after alcohol jail cell party
“A man who was 15 when part of a gang that kicked a dad-of-three to death outside his home has had his prison release hopes dashed after holding a booze-fuelled party in his prison cell.
Jordan Cunliffe was one of three teenagers jailed in 2008 for the high-profile murder of Garry Newlove who was attacked in a Warrington street by youths he'd just reprimanded for vandalising his wife's car.Now 28, he was anticipating his release after a Parole Board hearing, but in December, just a few days after those proceedings, he threw the bash while behind bars, celebrating his pending freedom.
Reports state there were six to eight people in his cell drinking alcohol and playing Xbox games, which led to complaints of noise.
The incident then triggered the Parole Board to reconsider their recommendation and Cunliffe's expected release was halted.
He has now been transferred from an open jail to closed conditions.
Mr Newlove's widow, Baroness Newlove, told the Daily Mail: "How is he able to have a party in prison with alcohol? It beggars belief.
"Cunliffe was a huge instigator in Garry's death.
Mr Newlove, 47, was assaulted in August 2007 in the Fearnhead area of Warrington.
He was "kicked like a football” after confronting youths over damage to his wife’s car.
The salesman was left unconscious in the street, having suffered massive head injuries, and died in hospital two days later.
Cunliffe's mum, Janet, has always argued her son didn't take part in the murder, claiming he was wrongly convicted through Joint Enterprise laws.The parent insists the teenager was registered blind at the time, "did not hear or see anything" and while with the gang, did not participate in the killing.A jury, however, disagreed, and a judge ordered Cunliffe to serve a minimum of 12 years behind bars following his conviction for murder.
Today it emerged, according to the Parole Board's decision summary, support from a psychologist, probation officer and prison official for his release was withdrawn at a later hearing following the party in the open prison.
His case was "reconsidered in the light of an incident which resulted in Mr Cunliffe's return to closed conditions."
The summary said Cunliffe continued to deny his involvement in the attack, but "appeared to demonstrate some empathy about the incident."
It said: "He had behaved well until an incident in open prison shortly after the panel's first hearing."
The panel recommended Cunliffe be transferred back to the open prison to undertake "additional training."
The recommendation of the Parole Board has been passed to the Justice Secretary for approval.
A Parole Board spokesman said: "We have made the decision not to release Jordan Cunliffe following an oral hearing, but has recommended that he is suitable for a move to an open conditions prison.
"This is a recommendation only and the Ministry of Justice will now consider the advice and make the final decision."He added: "The panel carefully examined a whole range of evidence, including details of the original case, and any evidence of behaviour change.
A review takes place with extreme care and we will never release any prisoner if it is determined they still pose a risk to the public."
Along with Cunliffe, ringleader Adam Swellings and Stephen Sorton were given minimum terms of 17 and 15 years respectively.
Sorton has been approved for release by the Parole Board following a separate hearing.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/man-part-gang-who-killed-18247442.amp?__twitter_impression=true
« Last Edit: May 14, 2020, 07:25:34 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes