REVIEWERS REVIEW - As part of the UK government’s requirement to reform public bodies, all government departments must conduct a Tailored Review of their arm’s length bodies at least once in the lifetime of a parliament, every 5 years.

As with all Tailored Reviews, the review of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) will examine whether there is a continuing need for the function and form of the organisation.

If it is agreed that the organisation should be retained, the review will assess the body’s capacity for delivering more effectively and efficiently, and will include an assessment of their performance.

It will also review the control and governance arrangements to make sure they comply with the recognised principles of good corporate governance. Contact: Natasha.Lee2@justice.gov.uk

The Criminal Cases Review Commission is supposed to be the safety net for British justice, but many see the inability of the Commissioners to remain impartial and work with the evidence and not stray from the tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in terms of fairness and decency, and not hide what the state wants to keep from the unsuspecting public, as one of the things that is wrong with Britain and is dragging us down as a society into a cauldron of political liars and civil service cheats.

Our police forces are already corrupt beyond belief according to reports commissioned by Her Majesty, who is obviously swimming upstream against a tide of double standards, where the law enforcers routinely abuse the rights of the accused, takes bribes and lose inconvenient evidence. Who then is the criminal? Is this what our Queen wants and what will future Kings do about it? The Prime Minister and contenders for that and other prestigious posts are likely to duck and dive rather than work to clean up our law enforcement junkies.

Crime Commissioners are in the same boat and also appear to be working to gloss over the cracks in convictions and case handling that is unsound in all but a Nazi like administration that seeks to control the electorate with fear and intimidation, let alone using taxes for decent roads that our Government are not providing - so more of the Pothole Politics that is slowly sinking this country - where the commissioners are allowed to continue "taking a view." Being allowed to 'take a view' is in many cases state sanctioned discrimination that is unlawful in terms of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and immoral however you look at it.

SHREWSBURY 24

Our campaign is seeking to overturn the convictions of the pickets at Shrewsbury Crown Court in 1973 and 1974. In law this can only be done by the Court of Appeal. We are not campaigning for a free pardon. A pardon is not the same as the quashing of the convictions. It is simply the Crown excusing someone for having committed a crime.

The Court of Appeal can only consider an appeal against the convictions of the pickets if it is referred to them by the CCRC.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission was established by the Criminal Appeals Act 1995. Its stated purpose is to review miscarriages of justice and refer appropriate cases to the Court of Appeal. Some famous cases amongst the hundreds that the CCRC have referred include Derek Bentley (the “Let him have it” case), Sally Clark (sudden infant death syndrome) and Barry George (the Jill Dando murder).

The Commission has wide-ranging powers to assist their investigations. Under section 17 of the 1995 Act the CCRC can obtain documents from any public body. This power is vital for our campaign, as the Government has consistently refused to release documents relating to the case. When Ricky Tomlinson requested copies of documents about him the Government refused to disclose many of them under section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. They claimed that issues of “national security” allowed the Government to deprive the pickets of information about this industrial dispute.

The CCRC has the power to interview jurors, police officers, the lawyers involved in the original trials and anyone else whom it considers to be relevant to its investigation.

If the CCRC conclude that there is a “real possibility” that the Court of Appeal will quash a conviction they will refer the case to the appeal court.

Our case is quite unique compared with the majority of cases that the CCRC deals with. Our research over several years has found that there was clear evidence of political interference by the Conservative Government in 1972-73, from the initial decision to arrest the pickets through to the trials and convictions at Shrewsbury. We will be asking the CCRC to use its powers to obtain Cabinet minutes, memos, letters and other documents for this period which we believe will confirm this abuse of process of the criminal justice system by the government.

The case was submitted to the CCRC on Tuesday 3rd April 2012.

Also see CCRC Provisional Statement of Reasons – July 2017.

DAILY MAIL 3 DECEMBER 2017

Revealed: Fresh evidence that could have cleared the 'Cocaine Crew' of £53m smuggling plot is REJECTED despite suggesting fishing boat never reached where drug bags dumped

* Jamie Green and his crew received jail terms of up to 24 years in 2011
* Mr Green was skipper on board the lobster boat Galwad-y-Mor on the night 
* Prosecutors claim he was able to find £53m of cocaine in the middle of a storm
* The drugs were dumped by a larger boat in the middle of the English Channel

Five men serving prison terms of up to 24 years for a £53 million drug smuggling plot have lost their bid to appeal – despite fresh scientific evidence suggesting the version of events presented by the prosecution at the trial was ‘impossible’.

Almost four years after The Mail on Sunday published the first of three investigations casting doubt on the convictions, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which has the power to refer possible miscarriages of justice to the Court of Appeal, has decided to take no action. 

In doing so, it is rejecting expert evidence that the fishing boat reputedly used to pick up holdalls packed with cocaine from the English Channel never actually reached the spot where the bags might have been dumped. The CCRC has also disregarded fresh evidence from a recently retired senior drugs crime investigator, who found ‘serious discrepancies’ in the surveillance records.

The CCRC’s 78-page ‘Statement of Reasons’, seen by this newspaper, makes clear that it did not commission any of its own scientific tests, nor seek advice from a single independent expert to confirm or deny the men’s claim of innocence.

The statement’s author, CCRC commissioner David Smith, said he did not consider any such tests were necessary. In his view, there was still no ‘real possibility’ that the men might win an appeal.

Isle of Wight crab and lobster fisherman Jamie Green, who owned the 39ft Galwad-y-Mor, was jailed for 24 years in 2011, as was casual labourer Zoran Dresic and Mr Green’s lifelong friend, Jonathan Beere. Crewmen Danny Payne and Scott Birtwistle got 18 and 14 years respectively.

According to the prosecution, Green sailed his boat into the middle of the Channel in a Force 8 gale on the night of May 29, 2010. There, it was claimed, the Galwad-y-Mor crossed the wake of the Oriane, a Brazilian container ship, just after 12 rucksacks containing a total of 560 lb of cocaine had allegedly been thrown from its deck.

Working in total darkness, with waves up to 30ft, Green and his crew were said to have retrieved the bags in about two minutes. Then, after spending ten hours fishing, they returned to the inshore waters of the island’s Freshwater Bay, where, in broad daylight, the crew threw the bags back into the water. They were found next morning by another fisherman, and retrieved by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA).

As this newspaper has previously revealed, defence solicitor Emily Bolton consulted a leading marine GPS expert, who concluded the closest the paths of the boats came to each other was 175 metres (190 yards). Moreover, he said the Galwad-y-Mor could not have sailed to the spot where the drug bags were subsequently found anchored to the seabed because the water is too shallow.

‘This new analysis, based on evidence that was not available at the trial, undermines the case put to the jury,’ Ms Bolton said. ‘It should have persuaded the CCRC to refer it to the Court of Appeal.’

She said the commission’s decision not to was ‘baffling and perverse’ – and said it had shown ‘a lack of understanding of the technical evidence’.

But the CCRC said the new evidence was unlikely to make a difference to the outcome because another expert, Mik Chinnery, had already told the trial jury it would have been ‘impossible’ for Green’s crew to collect the bags from the water, yet they still found the men guilty by majority verdict.

However, Mr Chinnery testified about the difficulty of locating and recovering the bags from the heaving sea, not the course of the boats.

But Mr Smith told The Mail on Sunday he disagreed that the trial expert was making a fundamentally different point. He added: ‘We didn’t consider the new analysis would make a difference.’

Mr Smith also rejected a new report from the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, which says currents on the night would mean any bags thrown from the Oriane would have floated away from the Galwad-y-Mor, not towards it. There were ‘too many variables’, Mr Smith said, and if the Galwad was ‘in the vicinity’ of the Oriane, then it was possible she did pick up the drugs.

As for the claim that the water was too shallow in Freshwater Bay, Mr Smith said it was uncertain whether the anchor to which the bags were tied was heavy enough to stop them moving from deeper waters where the boat could have sailed. He rejected suggestions that the CCRC should have conducted tests to settle this, saying: ‘I don’t think it can be established that the anchor didn’t move.’

The CCRC also rejected fresh evidence from Don Dewar, a retired senior anti-drug officer who found ‘inexplicable gaps’ in the surveillance records used to convict the men. Mr Smith agreed there were discrepancies, but not enough to show they had been fabricated.

The CCRC’s decision comes amid mounting concern at the plummeting rate at which it is referring cases for appeals – down from more than three per cent of applications five years ago to just 0.7 per cent last year – as it faces budget pressures.

Ms Bolton said the men now plan to challenge the CCRC decision with a judicial review. By David Rose

SECRET AGENDAS

The agenda of the Crown Prosecution Service and Criminal Cases Review Commission is to back up local police no matter how corrupt they might be and ensure that a person serves his or her term regardless of proof of innocence that may be staring them in the face.

This reminds us of the Potty Training case where despite the state being unable to force removal of toilets because that are a Health & Safety requirement, that Dame Butler-Sloss still ordered removal and only then said that the appellant in the case (his landlord) could reinstate them to comply with the 1992 Regulations. You cannot get much more ridiculous than that. But Britain as the head of the Commonwealth left over from our Colonial days, is being controlled by such bungling hypocrites. Hardly wonder then that our economy is in tatters.

The other agenda is to protect the integrity of the state and not reveal papers that would show those convicted were in fact stitched up by the state, let alone that King Edward was a Nazi sympathizer before he abdicated.

In our opinion the CCRC and their Commissioners are not fit for purpose. They are mates of former colleagues within the criminal justice system. They are not independent and they openly discriminate between near identical cases involving the same bogus science used to convict. They do not exist as they are at present to represent the electorate and in no way can they be described as working transparently where that above holds true. They are simply a shadow of their former positions, helping out their old mates.

CCRC CONTACTS

....... don't bother wasting your time. You might be better off lobbying for a change in the law to replace the CCRC with a truly independent body that is fully Human Rights compliant ..... because the European Courts will simply return any application on the pretext that you have an effective remedy - when in fact there is no such thing in our corrupted British system. For example, we have no written constitution!

ANOTHER FAVOUR FOR WEALDEN OR JUST A LONE MASON ?

It is a simple matter for any investigation officer to craft the evidence so that the facts presented to a jury more or less guarantee a conviction.

In the case of sexual offences, David Blunkett made it even worse by introducing the Sexual Offence Act 2003, an Act of Parliament that reverses the burden of proof in sex case so that the accused goes into court guilty, instead of innocent until proven guilty, contrary to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Given that the court in this case failed to warn the jury about the danger of convicting a person on the say so of the accused without any supporting medical or other corroboration as to events, the Court cannot be held to have acted impartially. The Judge, Cedric Joseph, failed to grant an adjournment after the discovery of a work diary belonging to the girls mother, a psychiatric nurse, where she'd hidden this vital evidence in her loft, possibly on the advice of the investigating officers.

That so many Sussex police officers should be involved in what is in effect a eugenics programme tells us a bit about their character and team play that is reminiscent of the attempted cover up after the shooting of Jimmy Ashley. They are not alone of course, it takes more than one player to pull off the deception of a jury. It takes a number of staff at the CPS and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's courts, and the trial judge.

ADOLF HITLER

Any move away from the Articles that came into being after the Second World War is a move toward a society that is elitist to the detriment of any race other than those favoured by the state. In the case of Adolf Hitler and his henchmen and women, also team players like Sussex police, Germany ended up murdering thousands of Jewish and Polish people in concentration camps like Auschwitz and Buchenwald that were specifically designed as death camps, also meant to eliminate any political opponents to their chancellor, who became a virtual God as a result.

That is a potential danger that lurks in every country that betrays their citizens human rights, in this case a right to be treated by the state honestly and the same as any other person. Sussex police though, is charged with being guilty of institutionalised discrimination, from the moment they backed up Wealden in helping that council to conceal the truth about the old generating building in Herstmonceux during the Petition in 1997.

That is more or less identical behaviour to the shooting and killing of James Ashley in 1998, where Paul Whitehouse and his senior staff lied about what happened and were found out by the investigations of Kent and Hampshire police.

If Gordon, James, Jo, Joe and Giles and the girl who emotional putty in their hands can live with themselves for crucifying Nelson Kruschandl in this way, then good luck to them. If they cannot be honest in their professional lives, how will they fair in their personal live and relationships and what of Hades, the joy of knowing that their names will be cast in infamy long after they are dust. This also applies to the Commissioners who are allowing the conviction to stand in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

We wonder if the CCRC found out that the girls grandfather was the head of Tyrian Lodge in Eastbourne, a stones throw away from the then Eastbourne police station. We wonder if this fact is one of the reasons that they are shying away from investigating the virginity and diary issues.

Officers of the court who act to craft evidence are part of what is wrong with the United Kingdom. Civil servants who work to hide police corruption and discrimination are ....... We'll leave you to fill in the gaps.

In the above case the Sussex Police police officers who may have had some involvement are: Ken Jones, Paul Whitehouse, Joe Edwards, im Mottram,  Maria Wallis, Mark Jordan, and where the investigating officers were: Gordon Staker, Jo Pinyoun, James Hookway and Dianne Tucker with Giles York being the chief constable in 2018, hence being involved in the case due to what many view as a state sanctioned eugenics programme that Nazi Germany would have been proud of.

SUSSEX POLICE

Paul Whitehouse was ordered to resign by David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary because of the Report that condemned Whitehouse in respect of the James Ashley shooting and the raid that was: 

"authorised on intelligence that was not merely exaggerated, it was determinably false ... there was a plan to deceive and the evidence concocted."

Sir John Hoddinott concluded that the then chief constable of Sussex Police: 

"wilfully failed to tell the truth as he knew it, he did so without reasonable excuse or justification and what he published and said was misleading."

Sir John also found evidence against Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan. That included criminal misfeasance and neglect of duty, discreditable conduct and aiding and abetting the chief constable's false statements. There was suggested evidence of collusion between some or all of the chief officers and an arguable case of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

In a letter dated 27 June 2001, Sir Alistair Graham, the then chairman of the Complaints Authority, stated:

"it is not possible to let you have a copy of Barbara Wilding's and John Hoddinott's reports as section 80 of the Police Act 1996 specifically debars us from doing this except in special circumstances." Hence, the Report that would have confirmed to the public what many already have complained about was blocked by Paul Whitehouse and his merry men. But we know of recent cases where such collusion and concocted evidence was used to target another member of the public that Wealden want to ruin in the same way that James Ashley was a police target - to protect the real criminals in society.

With such damning evidence of local police corruption it is obvious that we need a very robust mechanism to keep law and order running legally and above board. We cannot have reports into what amounts to serious crime within the ranks of our law enforcement officers being secretive - and that brings us to the Masons and the secret chain of command that nobody wants you, the public, to know about.

LINKS & REFERENCE

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367051/Chart-proving-jailed-Cocaine-Crew-T-guilty-four-years-men-started-lengthy-sentences.html

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/ccrc-review-call-for-evidence/

http://thestudentlawyer.com/2013/04/19/the-criminal-cases-review-commission/

http://www.bobwoffinden.com/criminal-justice/wrongful-convictions-uk/

http://www.shrewsbury24campaign.org.uk/ccrc/the-ccrc/#

HIVE OF CORRUPTION - These are the offices in Hailsham where your taxes are converted to planning consents for friends of the civil servants who rule the roost. The Sussex police will never investigate their chums whp are paying for the force to help them do all they can to ruin members of the public who make waves.

This is possible because the police forces in Britain are not accountable to anyone. Ms Katy Bourne was appointed to change that but appears to have fallen in with Giles York and his underlings to re-work the system to keep things as they were. We are sure that Parliament will not be amused.