Luton Murder Case
The problems referred to above emerged very clearly during the second reference back to the Court of Appeal of the cases of David Cooper and Michael McMahon. The conviction of Patrick Murphy, who had been named as the driver of the getaway van, had been quashed on the evidence of a new alibi witness at an earlier reference of his case alone.
In our 19th Annual Report we briefly recounted how, on the first reference, the Court refused to allow Matthews, the principal prosecution witness at the original trial, to be re-examined. He had identified the three men as his companions on the trip to Luton saying that they asked him to go with them to help them to collect some parcels. They all denied having been to Luton and produced credible alibis. Statements made by two eye-witnesses which clearly pointed to Matthews being the driver of the getaway van were not disclosed to the defence. Nor were they given the opportunity to identify Matthews as the driver.
On the second reference, the Home Secretary specifically invited the Court to test the credibility of Matthews. He was called and cross- examined, as were ex-Commander Drury, who had been in charge of the case, and a number of new witnesses. Matthews was clearly shown to be lying and at one point one of the judges asked him if he expected them to believe such a cock-and-bull story. But in the outcome the Court dismissed the appeal, saying that, whatever lies Matthews may have told, it accepted his evidence regarding the parts played in the murder by Cooper and McMahon, and clearly inferred that it thought the earlier Court had been wrong to allow the appeal of Murphy.
The most disturbing feature of this case centres on the two undisclosed statements. If they had been disclosed to the defence and the jury at the time of the trial it is difficult to believe that the three men could have been convicted. Yet this case has been before the Court of Appeal on four occasions without attracting a single word of adverse judicial criticism on this score, or the Court requiring these witnesses to be heard.
Two Noteworthy Cases
In last year's Annual Report we referred to two cases which, after investigation and representations by JUSTICE, had been referred back to the Court of Appeal by the Home Office on the basis of new evidence. One was a case of armed robbery for which Tom Naughton had been sentenced to 10 years. The other was a case of rape for which Donald Benjamin had been sentenced to 12 years. We are glad to report that Naughton's appeal was allowed. In the case of Benjamin, the Court ordered a new trial at which he was acquitted after the jury had retired for 35 minutes.
Complaints against the Police
It is still too early to forecast the effectiveness of the new machinery being set up to monitor the investigations of complaints against the police. We are, however, convinced that it will not solve the serious problems of cases where complaints of malpractice are made after a
15
Page 195Page 196