And let’s not forget Dr Michael Naughton also claimed publicly in 2013,
“It is quite sad in terms of the waste of resources and the distress to (Mrs Albert's) family members when it turns out like this."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-23630287
His recent comments on the Simon Hall case suggest the above was nothing more than a throw away comment
Appears Dr Michael Naughton would benefit from some work on his self awareness, maybe then he’d quit giving his ‘followers’ mixed messages;
“Michael’s research is highly interdisciplinary straddling critical criminology, criminal law and procedure, criminal appeals, penology and zemiology. It centres on the injustices and wider social harms relating to the dominant discourses, structures, procedures and operations of the criminal justice system. He has researched and written extensively on the causes, scope and harmful consequences of “miscarriages of justice” and the limitations and/or outright failings of the criminal justice system in dealing with factually innocent victims of wrongful conviction and/or imprisonment.
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/people/michael-j-naughton/index.html
Another ‘waste of resources’ case which appears some within the ‘miscarriage of justice’ arena were, at least up until 2017, still in denial over
”On Wednesday, in a preliminary hearing in London, three top judges said their case would not be heard until at least February next year.
Lady Justice Hallett said the men’s cases involve reams of documents dating back decades and hours of tape-recorded interviews.
The cases are due in court after a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the body which investigates potential miscarriages of justice.
“The CCRC says there is a chance that Charlton’s murder conviction and Ali’s manslaughter verdict are “unsafe”.
It has previously been revealed that part of the appeals will revolve around the detectives who were involved in the inquiry.
Craig Macgregor, for Charlton, said the “vulnerability” of a key prosecution witness could be central.
Charlton’s mental state could also feature, he said, as there are suggestions he was not actually fit to stand trial.
If we look at Charlton now, he suffers from a mental health problem,” he said.
“From that, the psychiatrist may be able to discover what he was like at the time of the trial. He is now suffering from a bipolar condition.”
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/body-carpet-teen-murder-pair-9663295
Alleged ‘bipolar’ or not Alan Charlton was a convicted rapist
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1jSOLUCiKnIC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=idris+ali+manslaughter+Dr+Gudjonsson&source=bl&ots=CdYZOrqGQZ&sig=ACfU3U2pBdVI_A8H501ysrfqecp4awErxg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9lIXoyNLoAhWMa8AKHYLFBqcQ6AEwA3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falseOn 26th Feb 2014 the CCRC referred the murder conviction of Alan Charlton to the CoA stating,
“The commissions referral is based in part on new evidence that a number of officers from South Wales Police who were involved in the Lynette White murder inquiry (the Cardiff Three case), and the Philip Saunders murder inquiry[3] (the Cardiff Newsagent Three case), were also involved in Mr Charlton’s case and may have used investigative techniques similar to those used in the Lynette White and Philip Saunders cases and which contributed to the quashing of the convictions in those cases”
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-alan-charlton-to-the-court-of-appeal/The CoA judgement can be found here
https://t.co/u2EkYWPzj5?amp=1Paras 63 - 72 give some background, though worth reading in its entirety
126. We begin with a few general comments. First, as Mr Whittam QC for the Crown observed, there are highly significant differences between this case and the other two cases. Those differences have been wrongly dismissed as irrelevant by Ms Blackwell. None of the prosecution witnesses in this case has retracted their evidence, in contrast to the cases of O’Brien, Hall and Sherwood and Paris, Abdullahi and Miller. In particular, the main prosecution witness who was present at the time KP was killed (D) has not retracted her evidence.
The CCRC, who did not apparently seek D’s comments, speculate that she would not now retract her evidence for fear of the consequences. With respect, that is a leap in the dark and one for which we can find no justification. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that D, many years on, would not admit, had it been true, that her evidence to the jury was false and extracted from her under intolerable pressure. Furthermore, we have no clear breaches of PACE and its Code in the treatment of the Appellants of the kind that troubled the courts in O’Brien and others and Paris and others. There are no failures of disclosure and nothing to suggest documents may have been altered or deliberately mislaid. If the handwritten version of a statement of a witness (D’s third statement) is missing and other records are no longer available there appears to be a perfectly legitimate explanation for that fact: the passage of time. It does not raise the suspicions suggested in the CCRC report or by Ms Blackwell.
127. Secondly, however closed the minds of officers in the Saunders and White investigations, we consider that the investigation into KP’s death was extraordinarily thorough. Approximately 80 officers were seconded to the inquiry and every relevant expert consulted. The HOLMES database revealed many hundreds of potential witnesses spoken to, 733 statements taken, 252 reports made, 644 other documents produced, 495 messages logged and 3550 actions listed. The senior officer in overall charge of the case (who is not the subject of any criticism) participated in a Crimewatch programme in February 1990 featuring a reconstruction of KP’s usual movements. The appeal was for any information that might assist.
This does not suggest a close minded investigation. We further note that the very thorough inquiry has been examined in depth by the CCRC and by counsel for the appellants; they have not identified a single significant lead that was not pursued . The fact that officers continued to gather more evidence after Charlton had been identified by D is in no way deserving of criticism. We would be surprised if that was not the case. Gaps in the evidence are often filled in this way.
128. Thirdly, the fact that Charlton featured prominently in the investigation is hardly surprising given the location of the grave. The officers would have been failing in their duty if they had not considered him of significant interest given his occupancy of flat, and closeness to where the body was found. Nevertheless, they investigated as best they could the identity and whereabouts of all occupants of the house, eventually tracing all rent paying occupants.
129. Fourthly, we are also not surprised that the police formed the view D was central to their investigation. There appeared to be an interesting link between her and KP, their absconding from the home and their lifestyles. A further and possibly significant link then became apparent between Charlton and D.
130. Fifthly, a number of Ms Blackwell’s submissions were based on pure speculation, no doubt because she was relying on the CCRC’s findings and they frequently used the expression “it is possible to speculate” to justify those findings in their report.
Speculation is no basis for an appeal.131. Sixthly, Ms Blackwell (and the CCRC) invited us to draw the inference from the fact of police misconduct in other investigations that there must have been police misconduct in the KP investigation so that all the evidence against Charlton is tainted.
This line of argument misses the point of decisions such as Willis, Crook and Foran, all of which emphasise the need to consider the facts of each case.Treatment of D
132. That brings us to the treatment of D. She was a witness, not a defendant. Yet, the CCRC commented at paragraph 193 of its reference in Charlton’s case:
“It is highly unusual, the Commission considers, for a voluntary witness to be questioned at a police station throughout the night, during which time a “breakthrough” witness statement is obtained. The Court of Appeal was critical of the same scenario in relation to Idris Ali, who was being questioned under similar conditions at the same time as D. Arguably, it would be anomalous to take a different view of D’s treatment that night, merely on the basis of any legal distinction between the treatment of a defendant and the position of a witness.”
133. It is not anomalous to treat witnesses and suspects differently for the reasons we have endeavoured to explain under the heading ‘Legal Framework’. So, for example, officers may speak to potential witnesses “off the record” in a way they would not be able to do with suspects. As a general rule they do not need to provide a witness with legal representation or keep records of their time at a police station in the same way they keep custody records. They should, of course, treat all those they interview with respect and dignity and ensure vulnerable witnesses in particular receive appropriate consideration. However, their duties towards witnesses and suspects are different.
With respect, both Ms Blackwell and the CCRC repeatedly failed to acknowledge sufficiently this clear distinction in law and practice212.
The law is clear: only in exceptional circumstances will the court entertain an appeal against a conviction based on an unequivocal plea of guilty. There is nothing exceptional here. Whatever may have led to Ali’s admissions while in police custody, according to Mr Rees, Ali was put under no pressure by anyone prior to entering his plea, which he did of his own free will. He was street wise and experienced in the criminal justice process. He was fit to plead, knew what he was doing, intended to plead guilty to manslaughter and did so without equivocation having received proper advice from counsel and solicitors. That advice would not have been significantly affected by the new material. He was offered no inducement and placed under no pressure by anyone. Mr Rees went through the basis of plea with him line by line. His plea confirmed the evidence of D and what he said to others in an unpressurised situation.
He made no attempt to appeal his conviction until the CCRC contacted him and with nothing to lose and possibly with a lot to gain he accepted their invitation to examine the circumstances of his caseThe following April 2017 article in the justice gap
https://www.thejusticegap.com/ccrc20-police-can-no-wrong/ refers to the author as ‘the Cardiff Law School Innocence Project’
Excerpts:
“So, the CCRC couldn’t persuade the Court of Appeal of the unsafety of this conviction, although the case boasts such clear similarities to police misconduct unearthed in the infamous Cardiff Three and Cardiff Newsagent Three cases. What hope, then, do we have in our cases where the CCRC knows that the bar to persuade the Court of Appeal of unsafety is of Everest proportions? Close to nil, has to be the frank answer.
This is all such a shame (in every sense of that word) in the light of the Hillsborough debacle, from which we know that there are cases of police malpractice on an industrial scale at the highest level. We’re not suggesting that all police investigations are corrupt – far from it. We have direct recent experience of South Wales Police showing signs of willingness to work with us to get to the bottom of cases involving allegations against their force. Time will tell how that pans out, but early signs are very encouraging – at the highest level, there is open recognition of past issues within the force and that these have to be tackled.
So, against the background of the Ali and Charlton appeal, our next article is going to look at one of our cases involving problems with the police investigation. It shows, in our view and in that of two independent police experts, very suspicious police conduct. It also shows how we have failed to persuade the CCRC (to the quote the Court of Appeal) ‘to leave no available stone of the investigation unturned’. Smarting from the Ali/Charlton referral, it’s not hard to see why.
But is that good enough? What does the CCRC see as its role as a general watchdog of the criminal appeals system? How does it react, if at all, when the Court of Appeal refuses to overturn a conviction that the CCRC considers may be unsafe? If it does nothing on the basis that the CCRC is not the decision maker (which is of course correct), then that in itself throws up wider ethical issues.
If it’s not the CCRC’s role to stand up to the issue of potential police misconduct as considered by the Court of Appeal, then whose role is it? Politicians? We, and many others, have raised this issue with the House of Commons Justice Select Committee in recent years, and currently with the Law Commission. But there’s a distinct lack of political will to review this unsatisfactory area of our criminal justice system.
We know from Hillsborough that police malpractice can and does occur on an industrial scale, and at the highest level. We should deal with this honestly rather than fostering a climate of resigned acceptance. Our concern is for lone individuals wanting to challenge a conviction. In the Hillsborough campaign, there were 96 families and a community behind them to give the momentum to fight on for 27 years. Yet if police malpractice featured in individual convictions, why should that be ignored? We call upon the CCRC to make a public stance on such issues where it considers that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. It’s simply not good enough for them to pass the buck back to the Court of Appeal, recycling the problem without resolution.
If the CCRC is to be an effective watchdog for the wrongfully convicted, and there are many more of those languishing in prison, then it must put pressure on the government to legislate for an effective appeal system that will release the CCRC from its current statutory bind.“Who is the actual author of the above article and why does it appear they are finding it so difficult to recognise they’ve clearly been conned by Alan Charlton ?
And why were they calling on the CCRC to make a ‘public stance‘ instead of recognising the error of their ways?
The fact the CCRC referred to the so called Cardiff Newsagent 3 case ie: Michael O’Brien, Darren Hall and Ellis Sherwood in the Alan Charlton case suggests the Commission were then still playing catch up. These men have yet to prove they are factually innocent. Darren Hall confessed to police that he’d acted as a lookout for the others during a “robbery that went wrong”.
Paragraph 15 of the Charlton/Ali judgement mentions an admission in prison by Charlton to another inmate where he was alleged to have said he raped and strangled KP in the presence of Ali. Paragraphs 16 onwards detail Idris Ali’s taped police interviews. Para 27 lists further evidence of admissions.
Incidentally Dr Gisli GudJonsson was used by the CCRC in the Barry George case
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/03/jilldando.ukcrime, the Charlton/Ali case and the so called Cardiff Newsagent 3 case
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WWg3DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT141&lpg=PT141&dq=dr+tunstall+confessional+evidence&source=bl&ots=wkuXI0l0FP&sig=ACfU3U3HN14lP3H1PP1y8VjYp0qLhNWYzA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisgKfXz9LoAhUvQEEAHXydAGsQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=dr%20tunstall%20confessional%20evidence&f=false Dr GudJonsson opinion of lIdris Ali’s ‘nature of vulnerability’ (As he refers to them) were ‘Borderline IQ, compliance & habitual lying’ - page 5 here
https://commentary.canlii.org/w/canlii/2006CanLIIDocs133.pdfDarren Halls read - ‘Personality disorder, compliance, impulsivity, poor self-esteem, habitual lying’
Paul Blackburn’s states, ‘Youth & fatigue’