|
The Tragic Case of Sally Clark |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 13 February 2003 |
The tragic case of SALLY CLARK, locked up for three years and three months for crimes she did not commit, is just the latest blatant miscarriage of British justice. Like Robert Brown (25 years) and Stephen Downing(27 years), her case had bodies and blood involved. So tests and DNA and forensic science eventually freed them all. But imagine the thousands of other cases. Innocent men and women, either unable to find evidence that they didn't do something or without the hugely expensive resources to discover such facts. Sally Clark went through the same horrible process that we have all suffered. Media demonisation. Police and prosecution trickery and deviousness. A jury wrongly convinced by manufactured evidence and emotive language. A judge determined to look strict. Total, absolute failure at the Court of Appeal (described by my solicitor as "only there to rubber stamp the trial judge's decision"). The overworked and underfunded CCRC, which only takes on a case if there is fresh, new evidence (virtually impossible to find if a crime was never committed - as in many false allegations of sex offences). If the CCRC hadn't pushed Sally's case back to the Court of Appeal and stressed overwhelming new evidence, the media would have continued to describe her as an evil child killer. And, if the appeal had eventually gone the wrong way, that's how she would still be depicted. So where have all the crusading journalists gone to ? Well, some still remain but they are attracted by the extreme verdicts - life sentences. And by cases involving bodies and blood. The unimportant vast majority of miscarriages of justice are false allegations (often by jealous spouses or greedy compensation seekers) and only receive terms of seven years, ten years, fifteen years - in reality, about the same time that lifers serve, but less cosmetically traumatic. But, believe me, we are just as traumatised. The media hates carrying stories or letters or interviews by convicted criminals. It challenges the entire foundation of society. The fact that thousands of innocent victims may be jamming our jails is so deeply offensive to the obedient majority that editors prefer to sweep such suggestions under the rug. Tabloids like simplistic caricatures and catchy headlines. They don't like to champion causes which deflect failings in the judicial system. Even broadsheets feel uneasy about such crusades. And the prison service, whilst realizing that human rights legislation demands contact between media and inmates (HIRST vs HOME OFFICE 22/3/2002 "for these reasons, the policy that denied P the right to contact the media by telephone whenever his purpose was to comment on matters of legitimate public interest was unlawful") is not only legal but an essential weapon in an innocent victim's battle for justice, punishes those who use such outlets. The police manipulate the media to damage the chances of accused or convicted victims. My name was linked to Matthew Kelly, a man I've never met, for the week before my appeal, seriously damaging my already limited chances and the reaction, when my denial of knowing him was carried in the media, was immediate and negative. I am innocent of my convictions - or 'in denial' as the prison service calls it, just like Sally Clark. Is this the kind of society you want to live in? JK
|
