Excerpt from letter to:
Home Affairs Select Committee 01.12.11
Susan May was convicted of the murder of her Aunt in May 1993. She has always maintained innocence and after serving twelve years in prison. Susan May was freed on parole having lost two appeals, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) have now closed their files on Susan May’s case.
The investigation into Susan May’s case has been regarded with a view to the Byford Reforms and the common law rules of disclosure in criminal cases. From this it is deemed not to have met the relevant legislation or recommendations. Susan May has been trying to obtain documentation from the police for many years, but to no avail. This is in breach of the Attorney Generals’ Guidelines, S.7 (a) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Both the CCRC and the Police Complaints Association (PCA) have found as fact that Susan May’s police statements were improperly taken and in breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) regulations, thus rendering them tainted and inadmissible at trial or in appeal. While these regulatory bodies that are an integral part of the criminal justice system, they make material evidential judgements as to the investigation of a case, it appears that their findings are not deemed relevant where the accused’s guilt or innocence is in issue. Notwithstanding their findings, their recommendations appear to have been ignored.
While findings by Susan May’s legal and forensic teams show that the credibility of both the police and forensic scientists has been impugned; Susan May’s case document ‘Reasons to Doubt’ catalogues a trail of misconduct by forensic teams and police, resulting in proof of evidence being tainted by officers. There are also relevant unresolved enquiries which have not been pursued, including nine fingerprints from the crime scene which remain unidentified, (as in the Jeremy Bamber case there also remain lines of enquiry un-pursued regarding the integrity of the continuity of evidence provided by the photographs).
No comments:
Post a Comment