The Judge RANTS!
Date: 16/05/12
Ill Met
This is the sort of subject I've been trying to keep away from of late.
As I've remarked elsewhere on this site (often at inordinate length), the primary symptom of my clinical depression is what I have termed the 'prisoner complex', in which I imagine myself in the position of someone who has been locked away at the grim end of that sausage factory known euphemistically as 'the criminal justice system' (a term which varies in its significance depending on the emphasis you put on the word 'criminal'). Thus I have ended up scanning, almost mindlessly, the day's news for cases of someone-or-other who has been the victim either of a serious misjudgement or of an egregiously disproportionate punishment; and - by some act of transference the origins of which are utterly obscure to me - identifying with them. This has proven to be debilitating at times, and so I have forborne to comment on such matters here recently, as writing about them seems to set the whole wretched business in concrete. It doesn't help at all.
And yet, I find myself unable to resist writing about one such case of which I became aware only a few days ago. I do so because it carries significance beyond my own pathology. Well, that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.
In 2005, a seventeen-year-old from Hoxton by the name of Sam Hallam was convicted of murdering a trainee chef in London. The case against him was entirely circumstantial, consisting only of one piece of identification evidence. And yet, to its eternal discredit, the jury at his trial convicted Hallam of the crime, and he was sentenced to a minimum of twelve years in prison. An appeal in 2007 failed.
And yet this young man maintained his innocence (and, such are the idiot ways of our criminal system, this meant that he would in effect never be released as the Parole Board would deem his refusal to 'come to terms with his offence' as reason enough to deny him release on licence), and he had determined and enthusiastic support from his family, his community and one or two public figures.
That campaign gathered previously unavailable (and, shockingly, previously hidden) evidence to persuade the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) to look at the case again. The Commission took the obvious path of actually having the nous to ask a police force other than the one which handled the original crime to investigate again. And so, Thames Valley Police was tasked with examining the way in which those fine, upstanding boys and girls of the Metropolitan force conducted themselves, and every witness from the original trial was re-interviewed (and this is important) under caution.
Although we have not been allowed - and may never be allowed - to know the detail of Thames Valley's report, what has become apparent is that there were major failings in the Met's investigations. This included - but was not confined to - the incompetence of one detective (one Broster, who was recently castigated by a coroner for his failings in a far more high-profile case, that of Gareth Williams). The Metroplod also failed - perhaps deliberately - to disclose material which would have aided Hallam's defence.
In short, London's finest fucked up - yet again.
All of the campaigning, all of the hard work, paid off this afternoon when the Court of Appeal released Sam Hallam on bail pending a full official ruling tomorrow (Thursday); a ruling which should certainly overturn his conviction, although it remains to be seen whether the appeal judges will suggest a retrial (which would, in my view, add insult to injury).
So, a cause for some rejoicing then? Certainly, although Hallam's joy will be tempered by the fact that his father took his own life early last year, unable to cope with what was being done to his son (CCRC only decided to take the case a few months after that). His delight at being out will also, justifiably, be coloured by anger and bitterness at what has been done to him.
Because consider this: when he was thrown into prison, he was just eighteen years old. He is now twenty-four. All those years when he should have been building his life, building a career; all those years which are the time in which we gain some of our most important experiences; all of this was stolen irretrievably from him by the incompetence or malignity of not just the Metropolitan Police but the prosecuting service, who made the testimony of a young woman who changed her version of events several times during the investigation the centrepiece of their case against Sam Hallam. He will after all this, even if fully exonerated, find it difficult - if not impossible - to get to where he would wish to be in his life. And that's not to mention the Met's tendency to bear a grudge against anyone who shows them up for what they all too often are: malicious, mendacious and cowardly.
And what of the perpetrators of all this? Well, we can hazard a well-grounded guess or two as to what will happen: any attempt to prosecute the responsible (and I use the term loosely) figures will be doomed; the wretched Broster (who in the interim has - in time-honoured bent-copper fashion - been promoted) will no doubt be allowed to retire on grounds of 'ill-health' and go off with his pension to start a private security company; the Met will come out with their customary "We are not looking for anyone else in connection with this crime" line (a slightly less direct way of saying, "We don't care what the court said, we still think he did it."); the bungling or boodling members of the prosecuting body will have long since skated away to untouchability; and any attempt by Sam Hallam to gain any compensation or other redress for his ordeal will be bogged down in delaying tactics by the Crown which will have the express - if understandably unstated - intent of draining any sense of victory from the victim. And any official enquiry or investigation will take a similar length of time to conclude, in terms similarly hallowed by repeated use whenever officialdom has committed the most catastrophic blunders, that "no one individual was to blame", and that "lessons will be learned".
It is time - more than time, in fact - that the Metropolitan Police force was disbanded. Sam Hallam's case is but one - comparatively low-profile - instance of clear, systemic failure; not just operationally, but ethically as well. Harry Stanley, Jean Charles de Menezes, Ian Tomlinson, the Tottenham Three, the comfortable cohabitation with an equally repulsive media corporation; all of them evidence not of 'a few bad apples', but of the barrel itself being rotten. Officers from outside of London should be brought in to establish a brand-new force, one where the 'canteen culture' is never allowed to take fresh root, and where the corrupt influence of omertá is stamped on wherever and whenever it may seek to arise. And then, the police of Greater London might - to use a formulation from the former Commissioner Robert Mark - contain fewer criminals than it catches.
Yes, I know; all of that will happen the day after horses learn to climb trees. But if we are to prevent further cases like that of Sam Hallam, firm steps have to be taken in that direction now. Policing is a difficult job; no honest and decent copper's work can ever be made any easier by an endemic culture of bentness and untouchability (or even the public perception of same), and if we are to have policing which operates by support and consent of the communities it works in, strong action is essential. Otherwise, we will end up in a situation found in countries supposedly less 'enlightened' than our own; one where the default assumption is that any cop you come across is corrupt - or at least eminently corruptible. And that can only be to the detriment of any civilised society.
Footnotes: Seeing as I'm on this whole subject, I have to make a couple of remarks on contingent matters.
Firstly, does anyone know what has happened to Liam Stacey? I now know that he was released from prison last month (although without the publicity which attended his incarceration, which is why I wasn't able to confirm his release until going to the above link a few minutes ago), but disciplinary proceedings are still pending from Swansea University, which may be ready to deliver another kick to him by permanently expelling him short of his graduation. Put baldly, they may not be able to resist the temptation to play to the mob.
Don't misunderstand me; I am in no way defending Stacey's conduct. Indeed, he seems to be quite the little shit, and one who moreover can't hold his drink. But putting him prison for mere words - however reprehensible - was a ludicrous over-reaction; as indeed were the sentencing remarks of yet another idiot District Judge, who came out with what, even by the standards of the breed, was the most Pootering and sententious twaddle.
For his university to add to the undoubted difficulties that Stacey will face - branded a racist (next worst in pariah status to being called a 'peado' (sic) in our society today), being precluded from his chosen career of forensic science simply by the fact of his conviction - would be a betrayal of any notion of fairness. All right, he seems to have little going for him in the 'people you'd like to have living next to you' stakes, but it is the hard cases such as his which display our determination - should we have it - to have a system of justice rather than just of the administration of the law, or of officially sanctioned vengeance. I do hope that Swansea University remembers the standards proper to a seat of learning in a liberal society.
Secondly, it would appear that Edward Woollard still hasn't been released, despite having now served the requisite half of the thirty-two months handed down to him at the start of last year. I do hope that politics hasn't interfered in this case once more, as it clearly did in the nature of the charge against him and the sentence.
What doesn't help is the near-total silence from his family and close supporters; the site supposedly set up to support him has had no new announcements on it for over six months now, and the last message of support went through moderation as far back as mid-January. Of course, if softly-softly is the way that Edward wants to play it, that is his inalienable right; it's not us in his position after all. But the approach doesn't seem to have worked too well if he is still being held well after the point when he should have been back home with his family. Perhaps some day we will be told.
