"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
Sir Walter Scott
Spring 2004
Volume I,
issue 4
|
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." |
Spring 2004 |
|
Satish Sekar holds a BA Hons. degree in Sociology. A freelance journalist since 1990, his work has appeared in The Guardian and The Independent and has been used by television and radio stations throughout England and Wales.
The Lynette White/Cardiff Three case was the first case he worked on; since then, he has worked on several cases, many of which have succeeded. Currently, Mr. Sekar is working on a paper on DNA databasing. Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry is his first book; it may be obtained by writing to Mr. Sekar. Direct correspondence to Satish Sekar or to editor@lifeloom.com. Lost Opportunities – Part One A Travesty of Justice |
 |
Introduction:
Gloucestershire once had a reputation as being the favourite county of the Royal family. Prince Charles’ retreat, Highgrove, is there. It is a picturesque county, but its idyllic reputation was tarnished by two scandalous cases – one of which was among the most infamous anywhere in the world – the serial murderers Fred and Rose West. 25 Cromwell Street, the scene of many of these murders, has since been knocked down. The other case had everything: sex, drugs and rock and roll – well all right, it didn’t have rock and roll. However, it never achieved the high profile it deserved. This was a case involving deplorable methods to secure convictions and a criminal justice system that ignored logic and justice to keep the lid firmly sealed on a can of worms for over fourteen years. It is a truly shocking story that highlights serious institutional failings throughout the criminal justice system of England and Wales.
The world’s media was in a feeding frenzy over the sensational case, as events unfolded at 25 Cromwell Street in 1994, but they all but ignored the other case. People pass by 34 Conduit Street every day unaware of the events that began there in the night of January 5th 1989 – that would set in motion a chain of events that would lead to a tragic conclusion. A young black man, Hensley Wiltshire, lost his life – an entirely avoidable tragedy – and two white men lost fourteen years of their lives. The full truth about what happened in Tony Poole’s flat and the events that led to Wiltshire’s death have never been established. Despite several opportunities the criminal justice system of England and Wales has singularly failed to give the public the truth about what happened.
Events at Conduit Street:
Tony Poole lived in the bottom flat at 34 Conduit Street. His friend Gary Mills – a former soldier whose hatred of racism got him into a fight that resulted in him having to leave the army – was also there. Mills had a keen interest in sport. The Mills family left their native Scotland for Gloucester when Gary was eleven. He represented England in basketball at schoolboy level. But Gary Mills was not one to pass by when he saw an injustice. He kept fit and soon built a reputation as a tough man to beat in a fight. He didn’t go out looking for trouble, but it had a knack of tracking him down. Nevertheless, Mills was no angel and nor was Tony Poole. They never claimed to be. They had criminal records including offences of violence. And they used illegal drugs, but this applied to all the main players in this case: the accused, the deceased, the actual eyewitnesses and the alleged eyewitness. There were no paragons of virtue here. This fact may help to explain what happened next, but it raises difficult questions for the administration of justice in England and Wales that still await satisfactory answers.
The night of Friday January 5th began like many other Friday nights with friends enjoying a drink and some amphetamines, but ended in tragedy. During the evening Ian (Neville) Juke arrived and so did Hensley Wiltshire and his friend Jeff Williams. According to those who remained Wiltshire’s behaviour was unpredictable. First he tried to pick fights with Juke, who laughed him off when Wiltshire told Juke to hit him first. Wiltshire had a reputation as a hard man who could finish a fight with one punch. He then turned his attentions to Mills.
At various times during that night Mills claims that Wiltshire attacked him with a knife or a crowbar. Mills insists that all he did was defend himself using the available weapon. Three times Wiltshire attacked him and each time Mills got the better of him. At the time Mills used amphetamines and he liked a drink. Tony Poole used to deal the drug, but only in small quantities to friends. This would later assume great significance. Mills claims that – having been there himself – he recognised the signs of the combination of drink and drugs affecting Wiltshire’s behaviour and claims that he took care to avoid any vital organs. The medical evidence supports his claims.
There is no doubt that Mills was responsible for at least some of the injuries that Wiltshire suffered that night. Mills does not deny it. Williams left early. A young woman named Kimberley Stadden came by hoping to obtain amphetamines. Poole did not have any, so he asked Juke to supply the young woman. Juke obliged. Stadden would become the crucial witness in the murder case that followed. At one point Juke covered Stadden’s eyes. This too would assume great significance later.
Tony Poole insists that he took no part in the fights whatsoever. Mills agrees. Williams had already gone, but he took a part in events that occurred afterwards. He was upset with Juke for not defending Wiltshire – a fellow black man.
In his first statement to police Juke said that Mills had defended himself and that Poole had not been involved in the fights, but Juke later made a second statement implicating both Mills and Poole. Both statements were not disclosed in accordance with rules prevalent in the Gloucester circuit at that time. It was a decision that would prove to have disastrous consequences later.
Stadden told a different story. Her first statement implicated Mills alone, but she made him the aggressor. It would later emerge that she was not the impartial witness she claimed to be. She had been involved in cheque frauds with the deceased – offences she could and should have faced charges over. Even she claimed to be surprised when instead of facing charges and getting a criminal record, she received a caution. The issue of whether she was a paid police informant was never satisfactorily resolved. At the very least she was compensated for the disturbance to her. Unfortunately Hensley Wiltshire was never able to give his side of the story. The waters were muddy. They would get muddier still.
Shortly after midnight Wiltshire was taken outside. Mills threw the crowbar over a nearby hedge – it was subsequently recovered by police – and got a neighbour to call an ambulance for Wiltshire. He was taken to the Gloucester Royal Hospital. Mills and Poole left for Cheltenham after cleaning their clothes. Juke did the same thing and also went to Cheltenham. They never saw Wiltshire alive again. Mills and Poole had no further opportunity to inflict any more injuries on Wiltshire. They were arrested a few days later.
The First Visit to Hospital:
Wiltshire arrived at the Gloucester Royal Hospital at approximately 1.00 a.m. Both Williams and Wiltshire’s girlfriend Faye McLoughlin accompanied him. Wiltshire was described as very uncooperative. According to John Fletcher – a junior doctor who examined him – Wiltshire was a very difficult patient who refused to allow him to treat him. McLoughlin’s recollections are somewhat different. She claims that the attitude of Dr. Fletcher was far from sympathetic. Wiltshire was undoubtedly a difficult patient. He was a sickle cell anaemia sufferer, who had lost blood and was still under the influence of alcohol and drugs. He would also have been in shock. Was such a person even capable of giving informed consent to be admitted to hospital and be treated? Wiltshire grudgingly let Fletcher treat some of his wounds. McLoughlin claims she had to beg the doctor to treat him and when he inadvertently moved during suturing Dr. Fletcher gave up, claiming that he had tried. Some of Wiltshire’s wounds had been sutured, but the underlying injuries had not been ligated. They would continue to ooze blood. It is undeniable that McLoughlin and Williams had some influence over Wiltshire. Three nurses acknowledge that they were able to persuade the very reluctant Wiltshire to accept treatment. This would later prove to be significant.
Nevertheless, Wiltshire was discharged into the custody of Gloucestershire Police. He was taken to the Central Police Station. He had been discharged with superficial injuries that were deemed not to be life-threatening. It wasn’t the best thing for Wiltshire, but it should only have resulted in discomfort if these were the only injuries that Wiltshire suffered that night and were as superficial as had been claimed. Police would claim that they had been told that Wiltshire was shamming and was not as badly hurt as he claimed. Tragically the best opportunity to save Wiltshire’s life had been needlessly lost. There was, however, a record of the injuries that had been treated on that first visit – a fact that would assume great significance later.
The Police Station:
At around 4.00 a.m. Wiltshire was taken from hospital to the cells in Gloucester’s Central Police Station. Several prisoners claim they heard his shouts of pain and at least one saw him in the female cell area where Wiltshire was being detained. They claim that it was obvious that he should never have been there. The police surgeon Dr. Arup Chaudhuri was called in. He asked Wiltshire if he wanted to go to hospital or stay in the police station. Wiltshire said that he wanted to go to hospital. He allowed Chaudhuri to briefly examine him. At 5.35 a.m. Wiltshire was returned to the Gloucester Royal Hospital, but why was he in a police cell at all? He was the victim of an assault as far as police knew.
He had not been arrested for possession of a knife that was discovered in his sock during his examination at the hospital. This would assume great importance later as he was arrested over another offence. There had been an allegation of indecent assault against him in London. He was arrested over that. Wiltshire was in the process of suing the Metropolitan Police over an alleged assault. It was part of the reason for him leaving London for Gloucester. It would also emerge that a couple of weeks earlier Wiltshire had been involved in burgling the home of the mother of a Gloucester police officer, although it is unclear when they knew of this. There were persistent accusations during the trial and afterwards that at least some of Wiltshire’s injuries had been inflicted by the police – accusations that Gloucester Police strenuously deny. This is based on the serious discrepancy between the extent of injuries observed at autopsy and those recorded on both visits to hospital.
The Second Visit to Hospital:
Wiltshire was a repeat visit and one with head injuries to boot. Hospital guidelines list both as reasons for admitting patients. In his statement Robert Vestey, a police officer who accompanied Wiltshire to hospital on this occasion, said that Dr. Fletcher told him that he could not understand why Dr. Chaudhuri had sent Wiltshire back. Fletcher unhesitatingly returned Wiltshire to police custody. There is no mention of Dr. Fletcher believing that Wiltshire should have been admitted to hospital but refused consent to be admitted and treated. Had this been done Hensley Wiltshire would not have died. Fletcher concludes his statement as follows: “In view of the patient’s non-cooperation it is quite possible that I failed to document all the wounds. However I am satisfied that all major injuries were looked for and noted.” This is of great importance; if all major injuries were noted on this visit, either further injuries were inflicted later, or this examination was grossly negligent. (This statement was made to the Claridge Inquiry.)
Fletcher’s evidence at trial was completely different. He would insist that Wiltshire would not consent to be admitted and that he was powerless to detain him against his will. Had Wiltshire emphatically refused to be admitted to hospital and be treated, Dr. Fletcher would have been correct, but did Wiltshire refuse? The evidence records that Wiltshire was recovering from the effects of alcohol intoxication. He wasn’t fully cooperative, but he was apologetic for his previous behaviour and was keen to be treated. At 5.35 he had agreed to go to hospital and be treated. By 6.15, according to Dr. Fletcher he had refused to be admitted, even though Fletcher agrees that this was Wiltshire’s best option. According to the transcript of Fletcher’s evidence he asked Wiltshire if he wanted to stay in hospital and Wiltshire said no. He then asked if he wanted to go to the police station and Wiltshire again said no. Wiltshire was clearly confused. Either he stayed in hospital, or went back to police custody. There were no other options. Why would anyone capable of giving informed consent prefer a police cell to a hospital bed? Not only has this question never been answered, it appears never to have been asked. Dr. Fletcher never tried to clarify Wiltshire’s wishes. He rang Dr. Chaudhuri and told him that he was sending Wiltshire back to the police station. Chaudhuri was concerned, but deferred to Fletcher’s judgment. This would prove to be a grave error with fatal consequences.
It appears that Chaudhuri was unaware of a crucial piece of evidence – evidence that has never been heard in any of the court proceedings in this case. This was evidence that could have ended the career of Dr. Fletcher and saved the life of Hensley Wiltshire. This will be detailed in Part Four.
Wiltshire was more cooperative this time and allowed further treatment. It was therefore far easier to note the injuries that he had suffered. Dr. Fletcher claims that he never recorded all the injuries suffered by Wiltshire. Why not? While he was difficult and obstreperous on the first visit, he was by all accounts far more cooperative on the second visit. Either the record of injuries on this visit is a complete record of the injuries suffered by Wiltshire at that point or the records are incomplete and therefore worthless. The failure to admit Wiltshire would have catastrophic consequences. A young man would lose his life when proper treatment could and should have easily saved his life.
Back to the Police Station:
At 6.15 in the morning of January 6th 1989 Wiltshire was returned to police custody. Police believed he was shamming and had little concern for his plight. Other prisoners were concerned, but there was nothing that they could do for him. They thought it appalling that Wiltshire was not given the medical treatment he needed. Gloucester Police received a fax from their colleagues in London, just after 11.00. The complainant in London did not want to pursue the allegation against him. The Metropolitan Police no longer had an interest in Wiltshire. From that moment on Wiltshire’s continued detention was unlawful. However, Gloucestershire Police did not release Wiltshire as they were obliged to. Instead they arrested him for possession of a knife – one that had traces of a white powder on it and had not been used for offensive purposes. This was not a holding offence and the arrest did not comply with legal requirements. The knife was discovered on the first visit to hospital. The law required the arrest to be made as soon as possible. There had been plenty of opportunities to do so, but these had not been taken until it became clear that he could not be held on the London matter any longer. The question of why the police were so determined that he should not be released has never been asked, let alone resolved.
The duty solicitor, Paul Griffin, was summoned and claims that he was told that Wiltshire was waiting to see him. He was unaware of any concern for Wiltshire. Police had attempted to dress Wiltshire in a paper boiler suit for an interview. During this attempt a then DC Patrick Geenty acknowledged that Wiltshire’s head had hit the wall. Geenty insisted that this was unintentional and vehemently denied assaulting Wiltshire. Nevertheless, it should have been clear to Geenty and others that Wiltshire was quite obviously not fit for interview. This ludicrous attempt to prepare him for interview occurred moments before he lapsed into a coma. Now the concern was obvious. Strenuous efforts were made to revive him. They were unsuccessful. He was taken to hospital for the third time. According to some evidence he was dead on arrival. Nevertheless, the consultant Stephen McCabe claimed that he did resuscitate him briefly, but he died around 3.00 p.m. This was a death that should never have happened – a fact that would eventually be acknowledged.
Post-Mortem Examinations:
The first post-mortem was performed by Dr. R. J. Kellett. He was unable to give a definitive cause of death. A second autopsy was conducted by the late Dr. Iain West. He concluded that fat embolism was the major cause of death. There were undoubtedly emboli on the brain and other organs, but while fat emboli did not help, it was not the primary cause of death. In fact it played no significant role in Wiltshire’s death. Nevertheless, it was not challenged at trial. This was regrettable as a good opportunity to establish the truth was needlessly lost. The jury were to be given an inaccurate account of the mechanism that resulted in Wiltshire’s death and were left with the wholly wrong conclusion that nothing could have been done to save Wiltshire’s life. Far from being an inevitable consequence, death was easily avoidable.
But the post-mortem examinations had far more of interest to say. The extent of injuries observed at autopsy was far greater than those recorded at both previous visits to hospital. These included three fractured ribs, a fractured leg, obvious facial injuries and injuries which came to be known as the ‘Mystery Injuries.’ These were ovoid injuries to the shins of both legs just below the knees. There were two on each shin, but only one each had been recorded on the first visit to hospital. The cause of those injuries remains a complete mystery. This would assume great significance later. There were approximately 60% more injuries observed at autopsy compared to the records of the previous visits to hospital. Could all of them have been there all along, but missed by the hospital, or was there another assault on Wiltshire after the last opportunity for Mills and Poole to have done so? This was certainly a major issue at the subsequent trial, but it was one that has yet to be resolved satisfactorily.
Could so many injuries really have been missed if they had all been inflicted at 34 Conduit Street? Wiltshire was certainly a difficult and uncooperative patient. It is certainly possible that some – perhaps many – injuries were missed on the first visit to hospital, but is it really credible that 60% were missed, especially as many of them were in such easily visible areas? And there is the question of why these injuries, if present, were missed on the second visit to hospital? Wiltshire was far more cooperative. Shouldn’t the extra injuries have been observed then if they were there? Although Dr. Fletcher claims that he never made a record of all the injuries that he observed, shouldn’t he have been required to do so? How could Wiltshire be deemed fit for discharge if all the injuries had not been observed and treated? How could they be sure that no life-threatening injuries remained untreated until and unless all injuries were observed, assessed and treated if necessary? Was this not gross negligence that cost a man his life? These questions remain unresolved. And it should not be forgotten that Fletcher said that he had looked for and noted all major injuries. Either he did not consider the injuries referred to above to be major injuries – an incredible definition of what constitutes major injuries – or those injuries were inflicted after Wiltshire was returned to police custody at 6.15.
A Shoddy Investigation:
Given the obvious importance of this case it would have been thought that this investigation would not only be above reproach, but would be seen to be so. Sadly, it was not. From its inception it was plagued by unacceptably shoddy practices. Once Wiltshire had been taken to hospital, it was obvious that some serious violence had occurred within 34 Conduit Street, but this was a crime scene that was not sealed. At the very least there was the opportunity to move or remove vital evidence. If all of the ovoid injuries had been caused there where was the weapon that caused them and what was it? Was it ever there at all, or was this a convenient way of explaining why it had never been found? We may never know. But there was much more evidence of shoddy and ultimately dishonest methods used in this case – evidence that would take many years to emerge. Even now – over fifteen years later – the full extent of malpractice has yet to emerge.
The Star Witness:
At the behest of her then friend Kathryn Haliday, Kimberley Stadden rang Crimeline. In this account she implicated Tony Poole. It was alleged that this occurred before she made her first statement, but it was never proved categorically. At the first trial, which appeared to be a dressed rehearsal for her benefit, Stadden explained the absence of Poole from her first statement by saying that she (Stadden) had simply forgotten. The trial was aborted when Dr. Chaudhuri could not attend as he was on holiday, but this was known before the trial began. Why this trial ever started remains unclear. Nevertheless, Stadden had gained invaluable experience. She would not make the same mistake again. At the second trial she insisted that she had told the police, but they failed to put it in her statement. Was it really likely that two experienced officers would make such a mistake? Nevertheless, both held their hands up to it. The head of the inquiry Detective Chief Inspector, John Bennett, who would go on to head the inquiry into Fred and Rose West, gave evidence that he noticed the omission and ordered them to take a second statement rectifying the error. Detective Constables Patricia Moore and Nicholas Churchill did so. No mention appears to have been made of Stadden’s previous admission that it was her error. Her credibility was a vital issue in this trial and it had survived its first test. Whether it should have done remains a moot point.
While Stadden was steadfast in her insistence that both Mills and Poole had attacked Wiltshire, there were serious questions regarding the reliability of her evidence. The jury could not have found Mills and Poole guilty without believing her. However, there were things that the jury did not know about Kimberley Stadden – things that would have disgusted them. There were inconsistencies in Stadden’s account. She was involved in criminal offences with the deceased. She was only there to commit another offence, namely to obtain and use illegal drugs. She claims that while preparing the amphetamines for injection her hand was jogged and she did not use them. She had gone there for amphetamines. Why did she not ask for more? Why does nobody else in that flat remember her arm being jogged at the crucial moment? Is it just coincidence that had she admitted using drugs that night her credibility may well have been tarnished? Nevertheless, Stadden was Stadden, warts and all. She was inconsistent; she may have lied about crucial aspects of what happened, but she stuck to her story rigidly then and now. The jury were entitled to rely on her and they did. However, the issue of her credibility would return to haunt this investigation.
The Truly Incredible Witness and Perjurer to Boot:
The next witness that the police relied on was Paul White. On any impartial view White was a witness of an extremely low standard. White gave evidence that he had gone to 34 Conduit Street on his own to obtain drugs from Poole. While there he saw into the room through a gap in the curtains. He claimed that he saw a silhouette of a hand reaching up from the ground and another in a downward motion. He claims that he heard a voice say: “No, Tony, no!” above the sound of a sound system blaring out music to drown out the argument going on inside. Nobody inside the flat including Stadden supports White’s account.
The trial judge – Mr. Justice Swinton-Thomas – told the jury that White was an important witness, but White was a liar and an obvious one at that. The incline from the road outside the flat to the window of 34 Conduit Street is steep. Had White seen what he claimed he would have had to have been about ten feet tall or have been perched on a step-ladder. It is also significant that the arson charges that he was facing failed to materialise. Worse still, two police officers allowed White to give an account in his witness statement that they knew to be untrue.
White had previously told the officers who would take his statement that he went to Conduit Street with a friend, Andrew Neale, but he refused to put that in his statement. White said that he had gone to Conduit Street on his own both in his statement and in his evidence at the trial. The officers knew that this contradicted what he had just told them, yet they allowed him to continue. Somewhat surprisingly, despite a decision to check White’s story with Neale, he was not interviewed by the police and the defence was not informed that Neale potentially was a witness whose testimony could have undermined White’s credibility. White had committed criminal offences – namely perjury and perverting the course of justice – and Gloucester Police not only knew about it, but allowed him to do so with impunity. The conduct of Detective Constables Brian Payne and Mark Cheminais would return to show the conduct of the police in a very poor light.
Perverting the Course of Justice:
Stadden and White gave evidence at the committal hearing. Their evidence resulted in Mills and Poole being committed for trial. But it raised important issues in the decision-making process. There were serious inconsistencies in the accounts of both these witnesses. Nevertheless, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Alun Jenkins QC deemed both to be witnesses of truth that the jury could rely on. How they came to this conclusion remains a mystery, especially when compared to their opinion regarding Juke.
It was the treatment meted out to Juke that was the most shocking and condemns the integrity of this inquiry. On any view Juke was an important witness – perhaps the most important. He had been present throughout the incident at Conduit Street. He had seen what had happened. The jury were perplexed as to why they had not heard evidence from him. The judge explained that they were to judge the case only on the evidence presented to them and were not to speculate as to why he had not been called. Swinton-Thomas assured them that both sets of lawyers would have had good reasons for not calling Juke, but that they were not speculate about what those reasons were. They had to judge the case on the facts presented to them. They had been cheated. Juke was a witness with an important story to tell. There was evidence that would have damned the integrity of this investigation that they had a right to hear. Sadly, they remained in ignorance of it.
Juke’s first statement exonerated both Mills and Poole, claiming that Mills had acted in self-defence and that Poole had not been involved at all. This was far from what the police wanted to hear. According to Juke they harassed him by turning up at his work and pestered him into making another statement. Eventually he made a second statement. In that account Mills had gone over the top and Poole was involved, but not substantially. Shortly after obtaining this statement, an inaccurate and grossly misleading summary of it was put to Mills at interview by a then Detective Sergeant John Jeynes. If this had resulted in a confession that would have been acceptable at least as far as the law was concerned, but it resulted in no confession; its effect was far more invidious. It would prove to be a pivotal event in the case – one that would cause them to lose their appeal in 1996 and win their subsequent appeal in 2003.
Alun Jenkins QC took the decision that Juke was a ‘Trojan Horse’ planted by the defence to undermine his case. He and the CPS believed that Juke was an incredible witness that they would not rely on. Jenkins also decided to use his discretion not to disclose Juke’s statements to Mills and Poole’s defence. As they were obliged to do they disclosed the name and address of Juke to Mills and Poole’s then defence solicitor, Conrad Gadd. Juke was interviewed by Gadd and told him what he had told the police. Juke insisted that his first statement was true and that the second statement was the product of police pressure. The defence was in a very difficult position. Juke had told them what he claimed he had told the police, but that didn’t mean he had told them the truth. Only the statements themselves could resolve this. Without them there was a huge risk in calling Juke – one the defence was not prepared to take.
They decided that they wanted Juke to be called at the committal hearing to try to force disclosure of his statements and persuaded the CPS to warn Juke to attend that hearing. Juke never received this warning to attend. He phoned the number two in the inquiry Detective Inspector Trevor Gladding. Part of this conversation was tape-recorded. Gladding told Juke not to attend. He mentions a warrant for Juke’s arrest for unpaid fines. Juke then says he doesn’t mind being arrested, but Gladding refuses to do so until after the committal hearing. He again tells Juke not to attend the committal hearing. At one point Juke says that he doesn’t want them (Mills and Poole) to go to jail. Gladding responds by saying that it was for them to go to jail, or for him (Juke) to go to jail.
Gladding’s behaviour was unacceptable, but had the desired effect. Juke flew to Jamaica and did not give evidence at the committal hearing. The defence strategy to obtain disclosure of Juke’s statements had failed. For legal reasons, Juke could not now be called at the trial. The jury never heard from him. They asked the judge why they had not heard from him and were given the response referred to previously. While the jury never heard Juke give evidence, they were aware of a wholly inaccurate version of what he had said – a version that was inadmissible, damning and inaccurate. This consisted of a portion of interview with Gary Mills. During it, what purported to be a summary of the substance of Juke’s second statement was put to Mills by Jeynes. Gladding was also present. Both officers had interviewed Juke and had taken the statement from him shortly before the interview with Mills began. This was hearsay evidence that was not admissible – a fact that both the lawyers and judge knew well, or ought to have done. Nevertheless, it was put to the jury. This would assume great importance later.
Mills and Poole insisted on being represented by the same lawyers. At the aborted trial Gilbert Gray QC and Michael Hall had represented them. Sadly Gray was not available for the second trial. At Hall’s recommendation Iain Macdonald QC replaced Gray. He only had a month to prepare. Macdonald told them that they would be better off being represented separately, but they were adamant that they wanted the same lawyers. Macdonald reluctantly agreed, believing that there was no conflict of interest to prevent it. However, the full extent of their options on separate representation was not put to them. Gadd accepts responsibility for this.
Macdonald advised them that it would be suicidal to call Juke. Reluctantly, they acquiesced. Juke took his tape to Mills and Poole’s defence team. As soon as Mills and Poole heard the tape they wanted it played to the jury. Had this been done it would have been bound to cast the behaviour of Gladding in a very poor light and reflected badly on the integrity of the investigation as a whole. Macdonald wrongly believed that he could not play the tape without calling Juke. A QC of his experience and ability ought not to have made such a mistake. The jury never heard the tape, but it was the basis of cross-examination of Gladding. In the 1990 trial Gladding denied threatening Juke, or even having had the conversation with Juke. Gladding had perverted the course of justice by his improper interference with Juke prior to the committal hearing and then committed perjury by lying about it at the trial. Macdonald knew this but thought – wrongly – that there was nothing that he could do about it. Macdonald allowed Gladding to commit perjury without making any attempt to even inform the judge what had happened in his court. Macdonald was gravely at fault for allowing this to happen.
Accusation and Counter-accusation:
Tony Poole denied any involvement in the fights at 34 Conduit Street. He gave evidence, claiming that both Stadden and White were lying and that the police had forced them to do so. Mills vehemently insisted that he had only acted in self-defence and that he had taken care to avoid causing injury to any vital organs. He accepted responsibility for the injuries caused in the flat. His case was that Wiltshire had suffered another beating that night – one that was inflicted by the police. He maintained that he was being framed by them because of this.
The police denied assaulting Wiltshire. They insisted that all the injuries suffered by Wiltshire were inflicted at Conduit Street by both Mills and Poole and that the hospital had missed many of them due to Wiltshire’s lack of cooperation on both visits to hospital. At one point Mills demanded that DC Geenty’s ring be checked against marks to Wiltshire’s nose. This was not done, but the accusation was put to Geenty who emphatically denied it. The jury were told that Wiltshire had died from fat embolism, the cause of which was a severe beating. They were also assured that nothing could have saved Wiltshire’s life. This was fundamentally wrong on both points. Fat embolism was present, but played no significant role in Wiltshire’s death and death was not an inevitable consequence of those injuries. It could easily have been avoided. Two opportunities to save Wiltshire’s life had been lost by the failure to admit him to hospital and treat him.
Another important part of the prosecution case was the disparity between the injuries suffered by Mills compared to those suffered by Wiltshire. It was claimed that some of Mills’ injuries were self-inflicted. Mills denies this and claims that the full extent of his injuries were not photographed or recorded. It is not possible to resolve this now, over fifteen years later. Mills claims that he was held responsible for murder to protect the real murderers – the police. The jury must have dismissed the claims of Mills and Poole that the police had violently assaulted a defenceless Wiltshire in the police cells.
The Claridge Inquiry:
Following complaints over the impartiality of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) the government decided to replace the PCA with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). It will become operational in April 2004. There were two investigations of complaints against the police in this case. As is normal practice whenever there is a death in police custody the PCA supervises an investigation into that death. In this case the senior officer for that investigation was Gordon Claridge. The other investigation was of Mills and Poole’s complaints of police malpractice in the inquiry that convicted them. The senior investigating officer in that inquiry was George Hedges, then of Thames Valley Police. Both of these investigations were seriously flawed – flaws that would eventually expose the glaring deficiencies of the system of investigating complaints against the police.
Unlike Hedges, Claridge was investigating colleagues from his own force. This investigation was separate from the Hensley Wiltshire Inquiry and unearthed some pertinent evidence. Sadly this was not disclosed to the defence in time for the trial. Ian Armstrong was a man who had several brushes with the law. He made a statement saying that he heard a man say, “Get off me,” followed by another voice saying, “Shut up you black bastard!”
This could have been evidence of an attack, but it is clear that it was not consistent with an attack that killed Wiltshire. It was far too late for that, as this occurred within an hour of Wiltshire lapsing into a coma. By then the damage that resulted in Wiltshire’s death had already occurred. Armstrong’s claims, if true, indicated that the police had not treated Wiltshire with the courtesy and respect that he was entitled to expect, or with the concern that he deserved. However, Armstrong never claimed to have heard an assault, even though it was possible that what he heard was consistent with one. The evidence that he could have given went no further than showing that Wiltshire was not treated with respect or courtesy. It did not and could not prove that there had not been another attack on the helpless Wiltshire after Mills and Poole left for Cheltenham. However, the medical evidence was a different matter. That alone was capable of proving that there had been an attack when Wiltshire was in police custody.
The Claridge Inquiry also unearthed some highly pertinent evidence relating to the thorny issue of whether Wiltshire consented to be admitted to hospital and be treated. This will be detailed in Parts Two, Three, and Four.
The Hedges Inquiry:
Following their convictions in January 1990 Mills and Poole made an official complaint about the integrity of the inquiry that had convicted them. Their complaint centred on the conduct of Trevor Gladding. The PCA appointed Assistant Chief Constable George Hedges of Thames Valley Police as the Investigating Officer. Hedges agreed that Juke would be interviewed on tape and in the presence of Mills and Poole’s new solicitor, Michael Hill. Both of these promises were not honoured.
Given the controversial nature of Juke’s allegations of malpractice, they were both sensible precautions. On the day of interview the Hedges team claimed that the tape-recording facility had broken down. Instead of re-arranging the interview for a time when a working tape-recorder could be found the Hedges team pressed on. They wrote what was claimed to be a contemporaneous account much later. And this account was never offered to Juke to sign as an accurate record of what was said. The Hedges Inquiry team appear to lead Gladding on what he may have meant during their interviews with him as well. Hedges concluded that the tape was subject to interpretation and that Gladding had been mistaken rather than lying.
A System In Need of Change:
The Hedges Inquiry in microcosm reveals much that is wrong with the current system of investigating complaints against the police. Statistics reveal that a very low proportion of complaints are upheld and that the public have little confidence in a system where complaints against police are investigated by other police officers. It is a system that helps nobody. Honest officers who have been rightly cleared are still subject to innuendo because of the lack of trust in the system. That is unjustified. There has also been an alarming rise in complainants taking civil actions against the police rather than using the complaints mechanisms.
The Hedges Inquiry is severely tainted for a number of reasons. Its conclusions have been thoroughly discredited and its investigating methods also left much to be desired. The fact that the PCA pronounced itself satisfied with such a shoddy investigation helps to explain why the loss of public confidence in it contributed to its demise. The IPCC will have some independent investigators and can supervise any case it wishes to. It will also be able to disclose investigating officers’ reports. It will not, however, consider complaints that were subject to shoddy investigation such as occurred in this case.
The representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in the discussions that led to the establishment of the IPCC fought the changes tooth and nail before welcoming them on behalf of ACPO once the government announced that it would be set up. ACPO’s representative was Chief Constable George Hedges of Durham Police. He has since retired. Under the previous system the reports of investigating officers were routinely not disclosed, citing the all-embracing Public Interest Immunity (PII). The IPCC has announced that it will disclose investigating officers’ reports to complainants. It is perhaps hypocritical of Hedges to have welcomed the new provisions in the police complaints system knowing that his own report in Mills and Poole’s case remains undisclosed to this day, while a similar complaint to the IPCC would result in the investigating officer’s report being disclosed. Sadly the Hedges Inquiry would dominate this case.
Copyright 2004 by Satish Sekar
| "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." |