Confidence in your legal team

What do you do when someone makes false allegations against you or a member of your family; this sort of thing doesn’t happen to people like us/you it’s the kind of thing you hear about on the news and in the papers. You may be moved into feeling sorry for the victims once you have watched one of those miscarriage of justice programmes that seem to be coming more and more frequent recently. However sometimes life deals you some hefty blows and once you get over the initial shock and anger of what has happened, you quickly realise that if you are to be of any use to the person being accused of something they did not do, you need become very focused and determined very quickly.

When something like this happens, you clearly need to seek out legal help and assistance. In KJ’s case he was provided with legal assistance by the Police Federation, but he had no say in who was to represent him or the choice of solicitors provided for him. He also has no way of knowing how good that representation is, because unlike many other professional sectors, Lawyers are not league tabled or have any sort of performance related indicators with which to measure them against. Early on in Kristian’s case he naively believed that because he was innocent then justice would prevail. He has since been disavowed of any such notion and has learnt the hard way that the truth played no part in his conviction. So basically you take a big chance and place your trust in the competence of the legals.

Sadly, and all too often we are misled into believing that solicitors, barristers and anyone who has any connection with the legal side of your fight will place as much importance as you do on proving your innocence. The reality is that you have now become part of a process which is guided by targets and legal niceties. Despite any concerns you may have about your legal team at this point, you succumb to promises that the best is yet to come. For us, that promise never materialised and Kristian ended up with a conviction he should never have had given the prosecutions own evidence.

The biggest mistake we made was not to become more involved with what was happening from a legal standpoint. Hindsight is a wonderful thing whose only purpose is to keep you awake at night going over things you wished you had done better. We truly believe that Kristian has been shell shocked by this whole dreadful experience; he/we placed far too much trust in the solicitor and barristers abilities to prove him innocent. Why wouldn’t we, that’s what we are led to believe they do, just like on the telly, they actually use their own initiative and think outside the box in an effort to build a defence. Sadly it seems that much of the legal process is just that, a process with lots of evidence getting “agreed” often without your knowledge.

You only realise what’s happened when you get to trial, by which time it’s too late. With the person being accused becoming merely a postage stamp on the bigger envelope. So here are a few pointers that might help you in your fight for justice.

• Use your instinct; if you have concerns about your legal team’s ability to fight your case, then you are probably right. Common complaints such as they don’t follow things up, they don’t carry out your wishes, they don’t answer your letters, phone calls or emails, then take decisive action before it’s too late. To do otherwise you could find yourself with a conviction for something you didn’t do as we did. Never be afraid to stick your neck out and if necessary as many times as necessary until you get a decent legal team.

• Make sure that you question things and if you don’t understand ask for explanations in PLAIN ENGLISH and not legal speak. There is no question that can’t be asked if it it’s important to you. Remember, you are paying the legal bill one way or another privately or as a tax payer.

• Check out the internet as there are loads of websites that highlight solicitors and barristers that give poor service. Some are quite “Honest” in their reviews. It’s worth a quick check to see if your legal team is listed or not. We wish we had seen this before as ours was listed twice, albeit the London office of the same firm.

• You should be determined to win at all times, whatever blocks are placed in front of you, just take a deep breath and head down and keep going. Use the phrase “Stop telling me what you can’t do and start showing me what you can do”. Don’t be put off by the constant rebuttals and bland replies that are designed to make you go away and stop complaining. Put your best Victor Meldrew hat on.

• Only afford lawyers your respect and confidence when they have demonstrated to you that they are worth it. Try not to be intimidated by the air of importance so many solicitors and barristers float in on. Nothing or nobody is as important as your liberty and you’re innocent being proven.

• Where necessary, complain to the relevant bodies such as the CPS,(Crown Prosecution Service) your relevant Police force headquarters)in our case it is Greater Manchester Police, the solicitors and then to their governing body the Law society or The Bar Council, which is for complaints against your barrister. The probation service, if you are unhappy with any aspect of the treatment you have received and always challenge unprofessional behaviour, assumptions being made about you, reports that do not reflect what transpired in your meeting with them. In our case KJs first meeting was farcical, the probation officer didn’t even have the correct or relevant file, he had the file which related to the allegation KJ was found Not Guilty on. Despite complaining they just attempted to circle the wagons and make excuses which dripped of management speak and managed solutions. I think you know where I am coming from. Pressure will be applied if you have been convicted to “accept” your conviction, because after all you must have done it if the jury found you guilty. They may well be able to take away your freedom for a short while but resists all attempts to steal your credibility too. It’s difficult if you know you are innocent to show any remorse for something you haven’t done, that bit isn’t allowed in the Probation Service handbook. Like the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses that keep trying to convert you to their path.

• Make sure that you keep all copies of letters sent, postage receipts (recorded delivery at the post office) any emails sent always request receive and read receipts when you send your emails.

• Remember that even if you are being funded by the Legal Aid system, you are still entitled to good service and a good defence. Few people realise that YOU instruct the solicitor or barrister not the other way around. When it goes wrong they will be quick to tell you that you didn’t instruct them to do something.

Spreading the Word

Use Social Networking such as Facebook, YouTube and the many others that are out there. One way to spread the word and to seek help is to use the many social networking sites to get people talking about your case. We have utilised this method of communication and a discussion group has been set up on Facebook for Kristian called Justice4KJ group and at the time of writing over 200 people had signed up to it in a very short space of time. What does this do, it puts your plight out there, it gets people interested in what’s happened and what is happening, it creates an arena where people can support offer support for the wrongly accused person and also for those left behind. Perhaps most importantly it means that your friends can tell their friends who tell their friends and so on.

Build a website

The purpose of a website is to put your story out there and make sure that people are kept informed of what is happening. It is also the only place to ensure that true and accurate facts about the case are printed, so that people can read the truth about your situation not something made up on the way through the wardrobe into Narnia. A website also provides a platform from which you can refute some of the more “sleazy” headlines used by the press and to which we mere mortals seem powerless to stop. Our experience has been that despite being in court, most of the journalist placed their own spin on that which happened in the court room, facts, the news items produced in KJ’s case story bore little or no resemblance to the facts. Clearly Headlines such as “Pervert Cop” sell more papers apparently than “Cop wrongly accused by serial lair and miscreant”.

What is most infuriating according to other wrongly accused people is that these same newspapers are nowhere to be seen or have no interest in your victory in the Appeal court when your name is cleared. So a website is a good way of keeping people up to date and allowing people to participate in a factual account of your plight. Look upon newspapers as good for lighting fires with and wrapping up fish and chips.

Supporting Websites

Look for websites and forums relevant to your “allegation”. In the case of Kristian was accused of a sexual allegation and therefore we looked at many websites with forums which support people wrongly accused of sexual crimes. There are many sites that refer to those wrongly accused of other crimes and who offer support and advice on who to fight for justice. Some of the stories and miscarriages of justice that I came across when researching the web are just breathtaking in their injustice and its only when you are victims of such injustice yourself, do you realise how badly wrong the British Legal System can go wrong.

Remember, nil desperandum carbororundum, an old Army saying which stands for “Don’t let the bastards grind you down”.

Since the autumn of 2007 I have been raising concerns with Greater Manchester Police over the way that Kristian’s case was investigated. I made a complaint in 2007 and this was allegedly looked into by the Professional Standards dept of GMP. Comments have been made on this site about whether that is what should happen in a democratic society. In my mind there can be no doubt that, given the recent record of GMP, a department of that force should not investigate a complaint against one of its members.

Be that as it may, the report on the complaint came back in early 2008 completely exonerating the activities of DS Barnard. Since then I have written to the Chief Constable of GMP on several occasions raising serious concerns about the activities of the investigating officer DS Barnard. Those concerns have until now been totally ignored. I wrote to the Greater Manchester Police Authority about my complaints and they fobbed me off. Others have written to MPs, House of Commons Committees and Ministers outlining our concerns about the way this investigation was handled.

Our MP, Ivan Lewis, wrote to the Chief Constable raising our concerns and was answered by a superintendent from the Professional Standards Department who did nothing more than lie to the MP. I therefore wrote back to the Chief Constable this month and laid out my complaints and reminded him of his duties under the law. The relevant law is the 2002 Police Reform Act and the 1999 and 1996 Acts which require the Chief Officer of any force, to follow a procedure in cases of complaints such as the one I have made. I also copied my letter to the North West head of the IPCC and the entire membership of the GMPA as well as Ivan Lewis MP.

Over the last couple of weeks the website owners have noted an increased level of activity from members of GMP and the legal profession on the website. Now, they could be just interested in a well written and informative website or they could be actually looking into the complaints that Kristian’s supporters have made about his wrongful conviction and the appalling role that certain officers from GMP have played in it.

Or they could just be looking to see if any laws have been broken on the site, so that they could somehow “get at” the people who have written it. Which one it is I will leave to you to decide. One does wonder why, if they need information about Kristian’s case, they don’t just simply look into my complaint or even easier, get in touch and ask me.

Today I received a letter from the Chief Constable’s Office, telling me that they have received my letter and that they will comment on the issues I have raised in due course. Now, even if they come back and say there is no justification to my complaint, they have to give reasons for that decision. I have news for them, the evidence is there and they just have to look for it. We shall give them opportunity to evaluate our complaints, which are serious ones, before saying anything else on this site about this matter. However, in the future I shall ask the kind permission of the website owners to publish all the correspondence between myself, the Chief Constable, (including the one I gave him personally and he ignored) the GMPA and the PSD of GMP. I will do this in the public interest, as it will give others an insight into how complaints are handled by the various bodies and especially by GMP. I will do this in the probably vain hope that these bodies might learn from their mistakes and improve the way they do business.

KJ’s Dad

This is the first response from Nick Holroyd of RJW to David Abbott's letter of complaint and shows quite clearly that complaints are not something they do.

Our Ref: NBH/Abbott/560.7985 10^th December 2008 Your Ref:

Dear Mr Abbott,

RE: Kristian Abbott – Complaint

I refer to your letter of the 13^th November 2008 and as indicated I have considered the contents of your letter and have now had an opportunity to review the file of papers and to speak to Joanne Stephens. I am of course sorry to hear of your dissatisfaction with the service provided but I hope to be able to deal with the matters raised individually as follows;

1) Joanne is a solicitor with 2 years post qualification experience and is in my view more than sufficiently qualified to deal with a case of this nature. Since qualification she has represented both police officers and members of the public in serious criminal investigations. Her case work is, where appropriate, overseen by a supervising solicitor. I regard her as an extremely competent solicitor who has always demonstrated considerable care and professionalism in conducting cases on behalf of her clients’. This particular file did not receive direct supervision but examination of it confirms that it has been dealt with to a satisfactory standard. At no time was there a need for her to seek guidance from myself or other more senior supervisors.

2) It is not accepted that the judge’s comments were a criticism of the defence. I understand that he commented on the unusual circumstances of the defence being able to rely upon the prosecutions own evidence in support of its alibi which is of course what happened in this case. I regret that I cannot accept that no defence was put forward. The prosecution evidence supported your sons account namely that he was not the officer involved and evidence was put forward on his behalf that he was engaged in other matters at the material time.

3) I have considered the case papers and I am satisfied that Joanne took all reasonable and necessary steps to pursue the line of inquiry relating to the key fob. It is suggested that she in some way dismissed your concerns about this issue. This is with respect not the case. The matter was raised in Kristian’s Defence Case Statement and pursued vigorously thereafter including the matter being raised before the court on two separate occasions. I have been unable to locate any correspondence or e mail in which Joanne refers to you “banging on” about the key fobs. You make a serious allegation against Joanne that she lied to you. I have found no evidence to support such an allegation. If you have copies of the e mails to which you refer then I should be grateful to see them. Had she used such language the attitude this perhaps reflects is not demonstrated by the considerable tenacity demonstrated by the file.

4) The Log Books were requested by Joanne in correspondence and raised in Kristian’s Defence Case Statement. She does not dispute saying “your parents keep going on about these log books” in an e mail to Kristian. This was not intended in a derogatory way. I have read the correspondence file and it is clear that Joanne responded promptly and thoroughly to all issues raised by you and by Kristian. I have to say that the fact that she engaged directly with you when you and your wife were not the client is a tribute to her professionalism and willingness to engage with you beyond that expected of any solicitor.

5) It is accepted that more could have been done to contact Airwaves directly but you should understand that information could not have been released to RJW by Airwaves even if available without the agreement of the police or a third party summons. The fact is that there was other evidence to support Kristian’s case and it is not accepted that any prejudice was caused to Kristian’s defence. He was of course acquitted of the allegation.

6) It is not accepted that Joanne lied as you allege. She rang Keyways having pursued the matter through the appropriate channels with the police and prosecution and having obtained the information and therefore their agreement.

7) It is quite normal in a case of this nature to seek disclosure of evidence from the CPS and as in this case to seek disclosure by order of the court pursuant to Section 8 of the CPIA. You may not be aware that Joanne made a number of other enquiries including a third party application for the disclosure of A’s Social Services records and two separate experts’ reports.

8) I note your concerns about DS Barnard. From the file I can see that Joanne engaged in correspondence by e mail about this point and her advice has been proper and reasonable. I believe that you did complain about DS Barnard. It is a fact that as a firm we do not become involved in complaints against police because of the potential for conflict with our institutional client but this does not prejudice our ability to examine police officers. Joanne was properly reflecting the position in her e mail but your interpretation of what she said is not accepted.

9) The file demonstrates a considerable volume of work and in particular correspondence with yourself and your wife. It appears that in fact Joanne responded promptly and thoroughly to your enquiries in the main and as I have said beyond what was necessary given that you were not our client. She has gone out of her way to respect your wishes and advise you throughout. I am sorry that you harbour doubts about Joanne’s veracity but I can confirm that there is a letter on our file produced and dated 3^rd January 2008 enclosing the case papers. At no time during the preparations for the case for trial in May was there any indication that Kristian had not received his copy of the papers.

10) I have been unable to find any evidence that Joanne sought to defend DS Barnard and I can see no reason why she should do so.

11) S A was not treated as a “vulnerable witness”. You may with respect have misunderstood the position. I understand that an application was made for special measures but that Ashton did not want special measures i.e. video link or screen to be available. I am told however that it was explained to you by Miss Crangle that for tactical reasons it would not be in Kristian’s interests for the witness to be attacked in an aggressive way. This would be particularly so as it would risk losing the support of the jury who might see the witness as being vulnerable. The judge did not remove any status as you suggest since she did not have such status at any stage. The manner of cross examination was a reasonable and tactical approach. A's character and previously fabricated complaints were put to her and were before the jury. It is a matter of regret that despite this the jury have believed her account.

12) As you will no doubt be aware Kristian instructed us that the semen belonged to him. There was therefore no basis to question the lack of a DNA test. You will appreciate that Kristian’s instructions only changed during the course of the trial. His original explanation was contained in a signed defence case statement which was before the court.

13) The condom wrapper was evidence and was not something which could, with respect, be described as “non evidence” given the nature of the allegation. The danger of having tests done in these circumstances is the potential for getting an answer which we would not want and bearing in mind that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Had any test we may have undertaken proved a link with the same batch as those belonging to A it may have undermined Kristian’s case. The lack of any DNA evidence was included in an agreed Admissions put before the jury and this was a matter which we used in support of your son’s case. This was re emphasised in the defence closing speech rather than only mentioned at this stage as you suggest. The use of agreed admissions is a common procedure in criminal cases.

14) The issues of timing were, I understand, raised before the jury and dealt with by the judge in his summing up. I cannot see that any expert evidence could have contributed to this aspect of the evidence.

15) I have to reject the assertion that Joanne was too junior for this case or that the case could have been dealt with differently had a senior solicitor conducted the defence. The case was conducted with considerable attention to the issues and with professionalism.

16) Contrary to your suggestion that she had made her mind up the evidence contained in the file suggests otherwise. There is substantial evidence of communication with you, your wife and Kristian which goes well beyond that which would normally be expected in a case of this nature funded by the public purse. Joanne was quite correct to state that there was a case to answer. This is something quite different from saying that the case is proved on the evidence. Any objective view of the evidence would, with respect be, that there was sufficient to justify a prosecution. Joanne would have been failing in her duty as a solicitor to suggest or pretend otherwise.

17) I have been unable to find any reference to expressed concerns regarding Kristian’s welfare. If you have such references then no doubt you will let me have them.

18) I am in some difficulty finding any basis for criticism of Joanne in respect of the Gibbons allegation since Kristian was acquitted of the charge. However to respond to your criticism I understand from the file that as soon as Joanne became aware that he had driven the Astra she requested disclosure of the log book and the CCTV. The fact that CCTV had been destroyed cannot be blamed on Joanne and did not prejudice Kristian receiving a fair trial.

19) It is regrettable that Carrie had not refreshed her memory from her statement before giving evidence and I would accept that efforts should have been made to ensure that she had understood her evidence before taking the stand. However the situation was remedied in the course of the trial and Carrie was allowed the opportunity to refresh her memory. It is recognised that the giving of evidence is not a memory test and statements are often referred to. Whilst unsatisfactory I cannot see that this was in any way detrimental to Kristian’s case. Such are the rules of evidence that any witness who is still giving evidence cannot communicate with others involved in the case. I can well imagine how difficult it will have been for Carrie to be on her own during the lunch break.

20) You refer to the fact that certain witnesses were not called. This is because their evidence was not in dispute between the prosecution and defence. In such circumstances it is common for the evidence to be agreed and for witnesses not to be called to give live evidence. This is what happened in this case.

21) I understand that Miss Crangle stated that there were no obvious grounds for appeal. It is difficult to disagree with this assessment however one would wish to find grounds in these circumstances. I strongly reject any suggestion that conviction has arisen from incompetence in the preparation of Kristian’s defence.

22) I regret to say that my clear understanding is that both Miss Crangle and Joanne were in court at the time that Kristian was asked to sign the register. Neither of them was asked for advice and they did not leave together. Perhaps understandably you were upset by the outcome but I should say that I was made aware of your hostility toward Joanne during the course of the trial. Such was the level of abuse from you towards Joanne and counsel that they felt unable to approach and advise Kristian and felt it was better to leave you and your family alone. It will no doubt be on the record that the trial judge thanked both the defence and prosecution for the presentation of the case. Mr Millington who attended on the final day was called into court for the judge to express his comments. Joanne did not attend on the final day because she had been so distressed by your attitude. She felt abused and threatened by you.

In response to your final questions and having examined many similar cases in the past I am satisfied that Joanne was of sufficient experience and competence. This was not a complex case.

The file demonstrates clearly her commitment to Kristian and I cannot see any evidence that he did not have an adequate defence.

Joanne has acted with the utmost professionalism under difficult and, at the end, hostile circumstances.

I have no reason to think that Joanne was other than truthful and honest in her dealings with you and your family and it is very regrettable that you should think otherwise.

I wish Kristian well with his appeal and I expect that you will wish to have the matter considered by our professional body as outlined to Kristian in correspondence and repeated to you by e mail. I have copied this letter to my senior partner John Webber. I regret that this response has taken longer than hoped for but it has been necessary to fully examine the papers in the case in some detail.

Yours sincerely

Nick Holroyd