Miscarriages of Justice and Community Cohesion - Assignment Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxx Title : Miscarriages of Justice and Community Cohesion" Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Page 1 NewsBeat NewsBeat A community newspaper from Lancashire Constabulary Issue 4 A Miscarriage of Justice at Manchester The tragedy of John 24, Amos 25, Ben 22 and Chris 25 all University students at a local University has been compounded by the conviction of an innocent man (Eddleston 2009). I know Kevin as a close friend, as well as one person can know another. He played a big role in helping me to get sober in 2002. We both attended alcoholism meeting together. In respect to that, we shared our most sincere feeling. For ten years, we skied, hiked and traveled together, often with my family. Those times, I spent a lot of time in his company. Like everybody else who knows Kevin well, he holds a special place in my heart and I love him. In case he was guilty, I would have testified against him. He was not guilty (Willy 2010). Until when I visited Kevin in prison, we had been estranged for a few years. Starting in 2006, stress from public focus on Kevin as a murderer started affecting his personality. He lashed out at the police men who he though were completely responsible for his predicament, and declined to speak to me. On the two days I was present in his court proceeding, he seemed cold and distant. Several people asked why I was defending him publicly, something likely to taint my credibility. I supported Kevin not of injudicious friendship loyalty but because I was certain he was innocent (Robert 2010). Kevin’s family never talked about this case and never read press reports; this is because of the family cultural values and legal advice and also because most press coverage was prejudiced, erroneous and agonizing. Kevin’s conviction traumatized and surprised his family into talking regarding the case with me. For the first time, they shared their memories on the night the four students were killed. In preparation of this article, I talked with all of them; to other witnesses, to Kevin’s lawyers; and investigators. I read both the police and press reports regarding the case and came out with my story (Clive 2009). Page 2 NewsBeat Kevin Adam’s case On the evening of 10th March 2005, four students staying in the same house with Kevin were shot dead. The dead were John 24, Amos 25, Ben 22 and Chris 25. Kevin called 999 at 8:15 pm, seeming very miserable and worried. He has finished his paper round; what else took place that evening has been unclear (Robert 2010). Three days after the murders took place, Kevin Adams, then aged 24 was accused by the police of murdering his friends. 2005 trial The four week trial took place at the Manchester High Court in august 2005 and was presided over by Justice Samuel Faustino. The prosecution case was, in short, as follows: Kevin arrived where they he was living with his friends at 7:00 pm on the evening of 10th March 2005. He went in his bedroom and took his rifle and some ammunition as well from the drawer and opened the trigger lock using a spare key. The spare key, which he kept inside a bowl on his desk, was used since he had left the normal key at a friend’s place. Kevin then shot all his friends apart from Ben who had not arrived by then. There was a lot blood and he bathed and changed his clothes but left some blood marks in the bath tub. He then went into his room and switched on the computer, and typed in a message “Sorry, you are just the one who deserves to be alive” (David 2008). The prosecutor alleged Kevin waited for Ben to come, since he always arrived a little bit late. When Ben entered the house, Kevin shot him in the chest from a very close range. He then rearranged the sight to look like a suicide, then called 999 to report the killings, feigning to be very distressed and worried. Page 3 NewsBeat On the other hand, Kevin’s story was that he arrived home at the normal time and went on his paper run. He arrived back at around 6:45-6:50 pm, using the back door went to his room. He took off his shoes and went to the bathroom where he bathed and went back to his room and changed his clothes. He then went upstairs and on turning the lights on. He noticed bullets and trigger lock on the floor. He went into John’s room and found him dead and went into the other rooms where he heard Chris gurgling, and found Ben dead in the lounge. He was shocked and called emergency number in great agony (Robert 2010). The prosecution did not attempt to reconcile their time-line events with the evidence of two individuals who saw Kevin after the alleged computer turn-on time. Kevin testified, and was not tripped up by lack-luster cross-examination. The Defence suggested that Ben killed the other friends, before switching on the computer, typing the message and then shot himself. Conviction and sentencing On 1st September 2005, after a four week trial, Kevin Adams was convicted by the judge on four murder counts. On 2nd October 2005, Justice Samuel Faustino sentenced him to life imprisonment with a 15 year non-parole period. Appeals against conviction Kevin maintained that he was innocent, and his supporters carried out a long campaign for his case to be reheard. Privy Council refused to hear his appeal in 2006. The police complaints authority revised the police investigation into the murders and in the same year issued a 95-page report supporting its conduct. After Kevin petitioned for a pardon, the Ministry of Justice held another inquiry from 2006 to 2007 and established no miscarriage justice. Kevin then appealed to the Privy Council for another time (Bob 2007). 2007 Privy Council appeal In 2007, the Privy Council decided to hear Kevin’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s verdict and the hearing occurred for five days in June 2007. On Friday, July 10, 2007, the Privy Council nullified Kevin Adams’s, establishing that concluding that "a considerable miscarriage of justice has actually taken place." Whereas noting "nothing in this judgment should influence the judgment in any way." They suggested a retrial, which the later Solicitor-General of Manchester confirmed it would occur (Killias 2010). Privy Council findings The surfacing of much new evidence after the trial resulted into later appeals and the ultimate overturn of Kevin’s convictions pending a retrial. Three of the most significant items were assessed in Privy Council findings: Page 4 NewsBeat Ben mental state The jury was not aware that Ben was “quite acutely disturbed had reportedly stabbed a student at the school and was fond of writing brutal stories at school one which was about serial murder of close friends (Killias 2010). Time Kevin returned home A person was seen by a passing motorist entering the gate at 6:50 pm. The consistency of this time was left more uncertain than required in the judge’s mind, since they were not told that the police checked the vehicle’s clock. The witness had said she had seen Kevin on his paper run but they were not told regarding this second statement. After retiring, the judge requested to read motorist’s statement, about when Kevin arrived home; the jury then re-read her first statement (Killias 2010). Kevin’s bloody fingerprints on rifle The fingerprints of Kevin were established on the rifle, pressed there by bloody fingers. During the trial, it was presumed that it was human’s blood. A test of the fingerprint blood later tested negative for human DNA, and the prints were perhaps from possum. Privy Council found that Kevin deserved a retrial. Retrial The retrial was announced March 2010. The decision to carry out a retrial was founded on several factors including the graveness of the crimes, the time Kevin spent in prison and availability of exhibits (Killias 2010). Verdict The retrial took two months, where witnesses were called by the Crown as well as by the defence. The ultimate evidence was presented on 20th May 2010. The judge retired for numerous hours the subsequent week to consider their verdict after getting the closing statements from both the prosecution and defence. The jury asserted that they should be absolutely sure Kevin was guilty. At 2:30pm on afternoon of 27th may 2010, the judge gave their verdict: they found Kevin Adams not guilty on all four charges (Robert 2010). Kevin served five years for crimes he did not commit. . Hate Propaganda and Hate Crime Police: Serving the Community and the Community Cohesion team, 2010 YOU ARE NOT ALONE The British Police have made a solid pledge to tackle hate oriented criminal activity When a crime happens within a community, it is necessary for those living and working in that community to be concerned. The concern should be reinforced, when the motive of the perpetrator is based on the prejudice he or she could be having towards the victimized individual or group, just because she or he views them to be different and not because they have done anything. What is HATE CRIME? Hate crime is a criminal offence committed against an individual, group or property the basis being, race, religion, nationality, gender or disability (Robert 2008). HATE CRIME hits at the core heart of the victim’s identity. When an individual or a group becomes a victim of a HATE CRIME, this has a big effect on their families, relatives and the entire community at large. INTIMIDATION... FEAR... TERROR... RIPPLES THROUGH THE COMMUNITY. What to do if you are a victim of HATE CRIME In case you suspect hate crime is present, in any form, within your community, call the police and ask for help. You might have questions and concerns. Do not be hesitant is asking the questions either during the investigation or within any follow-up telephone calls to the Police. In case at a later date you are requested to be a witness during a court trial, request for a full explanation of the proceeding and your roles. It is your right to know. One of the duties of your police service is to provide you assistance and advice with respect to any shape of hate crime. Please call. Help us to help you. Fighting hate crime successfully calls for a high level of police and community interaction, in addition to active citizen participation. REMEMBER... It is of vital importance that HATE CRIMES be reported to the police. Bibliography Clive, W., 2009, Miscarriages of justice: a review of justice in error, Blackstone Press, Sydney. David, S., 2008, Understanding miscarriages of justice: law, the media, and the inevitability of crisis, Oxford University Press, London. Eddleston, J., 2009, Miscarriages of Justice: Famous London Cases; Foul Deeds and Suspicious Deaths, Wharncliffe Books, London. Bob, W., 2007, Miscarriages of justice, Coronet, New Jersey. Killias, M., 2010, Wrongful conviction: international perspectives on miscarriages of justice, Temple University Press, Ontario. Robert, B., 2008, Identity, ethnic diversity and community cohesion, SAGE, California. Robert, J., 2010, Samples of Miscarriages of justice Cases, Sage, Austria. Ted, C., 2008, Community cohesion: a new framework for race and diversity, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Willy, S., 2010, Miscarriages of justice, Tariq Modood, Toronto. Read More