JUROR No 9 BLOWS THE WHISTLE
After the men were wrongfully convicted one of the jurors detonated an almighty legal bombshell that SOCA officers had tampered with the jury
|
|
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
Half-way through the trial, Juror 9 heard from another juror something that had not been presented as evidence in court.
The other juror had attended a social event at a local sports club and a SOCA officer had been there. The two got chatting and the officer said:
1…SOCA knew they’d made all sorts of mistakes in the way they’d collected and presented evidence but the men were still definitely guilty;
2...Before Jon Beere had been arrested, he went to visit Jamie Green - who was in Parkhurst prison at the time, being held on remand. The two of them had used that rare moment together to make up a cover story;
3...SOCA were furious with Green’s main defence counsel, Julian Christopher QC, because he’d worked for them in the past - helping prosecute their cases instead of defending against them - and he was using all his inside-knowledge to trip them up.
The other juror had attended a social event at a local sports club and a SOCA officer had been there. The two got chatting and the officer said:
1…SOCA knew they’d made all sorts of mistakes in the way they’d collected and presented evidence but the men were still definitely guilty;
2...Before Jon Beere had been arrested, he went to visit Jamie Green - who was in Parkhurst prison at the time, being held on remand. The two of them had used that rare moment together to make up a cover story;
3...SOCA were furious with Green’s main defence counsel, Julian Christopher QC, because he’d worked for them in the past - helping prosecute their cases instead of defending against them - and he was using all his inside-knowledge to trip them up.
WHAT DID JUROR No 9 DO ABOUT THIS?
After the trial, Juror 9 wrote to Julian Christopher QC and explained what had happened. Mr Christopher immediately realised it rang true - especially the bit concerning his relationship with SOCA, which had deteriorated in the aftermath of the trial.
Christopher immediately forwarded Juror 9’s letter to the Court of Appeal who asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission to begin an immediate investigation. Eleven of the twelve jurors were interviewed. Mr Christopher stood down as defence counsel so he could provide evidence to the Court of Appeal, Juror 9's account echoed his experiences with SOCA during and after the trial.
Christopher immediately forwarded Juror 9’s letter to the Court of Appeal who asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission to begin an immediate investigation. Eleven of the twelve jurors were interviewed. Mr Christopher stood down as defence counsel so he could provide evidence to the Court of Appeal, Juror 9's account echoed his experiences with SOCA during and after the trial.
DID THE INVESTIGATION UNCOVER ANYTHING ELSE POTENTIALLY WRONG?
Yes. It discovered the woman juror who’d been seen walking hand-in-hand with a mystery man sat in the public gallery during the trial, was in a relationship with him.
This meant he would have heard what had been said in court during periods when the jurors had been asked to leave so legal issues could be discussed.
There was was something else: he was a former police community support officer and he admitted he’d drank coffee and ate lunch with other jurors during the trial. However, he also insisted he’d never discussed the case with his partner - or any of the other jurors.
This meant he would have heard what had been said in court during periods when the jurors had been asked to leave so legal issues could be discussed.
There was was something else: he was a former police community support officer and he admitted he’d drank coffee and ate lunch with other jurors during the trial. However, he also insisted he’d never discussed the case with his partner - or any of the other jurors.
WHAT DID THE COURT OF APPEAL DO?
Nothing - other than sweep everything under the carpet. The investigators who’d quizzed Juror 9 said he was ‘sincere’ - while the juror at the social club even admitted he knew SOCA officers both professionally and socially. Lady Justice Hallet, however, was having none of it. As far as she was concerned, the interviews with the other jurors were inconclusive, and Juror 9’s claims of jury tampering were therefore ‘unreliable’.
The Appeal was denied on October 3, 2012.
The Appeal was denied on October 3, 2012.
Now go to "LOG BENDING" to see how two of the prosecution’s key police witnesses bent
the evidence to secure a conviction
