Support JENGBA : JOINT ENTERPRISE: NOT GUILTY by ASSOCIATION (JENGbA) is a grassroots campaign supporting prisoners who have been convicted under joint enterprise but who are not guilty of the index offence.

Jun-22-2012

Help the UK's Wrongly Convicted Tuesday in London

Tim King Salem-News.com

 

Stand for justice at JENGbA Campaign Fundraiser; sometimes justice is not blind but the wrongly convicted are...

CD cover of Rapper Goddaz has Jordan Cunliffe's picture above the letter A. Goddaz will be joined by Alabama 3 and others to be announced for the special 26 June event.

(SALEM / LONDON) 

- By the time you are done reading this account of a wrongly convicted boy in England; his mother's pursuit of justice, and her support from one of the UK's most famous wrongly convicted men, you just might be asking where you can sign up to help. 

We all must remember that one single victory for a human being's injustice, is a battle won in the war for human rights, and that is in many respects what it is coming down to.

Our newsroom was advised of an upcoming fundraiser that is worth paying attention to. It is a call to assist an important cause for justice in the UK, and I hope people in the London area get out and support this group in their mission for justice by attending the scheduled event referenced below.

Paddy Hill photo: GuardianUK Janet Cunliffe photo: Guardian UK

Janet Cunliffe is battling the legal system on behalf of her son Jordan, who she contends, was falsely convicted of Murder.

“

Myself and Paddy Hill (one of the Birmingham Six who was released on Appeal after 16 long years in prison) are guest speakers. We are hoping to raise money for the JENGbA Campaign as well as raising awareness to the abuse of the law of Joint Enterprise and the horror of being a Miscarriage of Justice as Paddy Hill was and my son Jordan Cunliffe's now is.

”

Both Paddy Hill and Janet Cunliffe have a great deal to say about civil and legal injustice in the UK today. In fact Mr. Hill can talk about the absence of it in ways that would likely make your skin crawl.

His story is one of false conviction under extreme prejudice, and eventual appeal and freedom. This political prisoner was called a terrorist, and then terrorized for more than a decade and a half by his own government. As the record would later show, Paddy Hill and the others were victims of a terrible miscarriage of justice.

"They have nothing in their whole imperial arsenal that can break the spirit of one Irishman who doesn't want to be broken" - Bobby Sands

As Ms. Cunliffe mentioned, he is one of the 'Birmingham Six'- men convicted for being Provisional IRA (Irish Republican Army) members complicit in the infamous 'pub bombings' of 21 November 1974 in Birmingham, England that left 21 people dead, and 182 injured.

To this day, it is not clear whether the IRA was even involved in the incident, and it is a fact that Dáithí Ó Conaill, a member of the IRA's Army Council, denied any claim to the act the day following the deadly bombings:

“

If IRA members had carried-out such attacks, they would be court-martialled and could face the death penalty. The IRA has clear guidelines for waging its war. Any attack on non-military installations must be preceded by a 30-minute warning so that no innocent civilians are endangered.

”

At the time, Wikipedia states, IRA sources in London said that the bombs might have been planted by Ulster loyalists "bent on stirring-up a wave of anti-Irish feeling in Britain".

Mulberry Bush Pub bombing: justice4the21.blogspot.com

The political and media attention allowed the British occupational war in Northern Ireland to escalate tensions under the banner of terrorism, and these men were prosecuted for a crime that another group they had absolutely no connection to, actually claimed responsibility... the small militant group, "Manchester Brigade of Red Flag 74"; an organization that reportedly broke away from the International Marxist Group and claimed to have about 500 members.

The bombings brought a wave of anti-Irish sentiment; attacks were waged on members of the Irish community in Great Britain, and then just days after the bombings, the 'Prevention of Terrorism Act' was introduced by the British Government.

The Birmingham Six faced charges based on circumstantial evidence, for murder and conspiracy to cause explosions. Three men were charged with conspiracy and two also faced charges of unlawful possession of explosives.

Convicted and sentenced to life in what a higher court later determined to be a fabricated police case, he and the other men: Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Joseph Hill, Gerard Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, William Power and John Walker, who were physically abused by police and sentenced to life in prison, waited sixteen years behind bars for a successful appeal.

The Birmingham Six on the day of their release with Chris Mullin MP (centre) Courtesy: innocent.org.uk

A police superintendent and two other police officers would be charged with perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, Wikipedia explains. 

Unlike the Birmingham 6, the police were never prosecuted.

Paddy Hill eventually found his freedom, but for Janet Cunliffe and her son, the pain generated by this same legal system drags on. Jordan, a teenage youth, is serving a life sentence for Murder as one of three teens convicted in the death of a father that tangled with the boys, who reportedly had been drinking, after his daughter told him that they were vandalising a garden; and lost his life in a scuffle with the boys.

While her son was convicted by the courts in the death of Garry Newlove, the boy was prosecuted according to Joint Enterprise; an archaic doctrine introduced hundreds of years ago to outlaw duelling- of all things.

15-year old Jordan Cunliffe

"It means anyone associated with someone who commits a crime can be convicted alongside them for the same offence," JOINT ENTERPRISE: NOT GUILTY by ASSOCIATION (JENGbA), the group holding the upcoming fundraising event, explains.

The case against the youths coincided with a public outcry against teen drinking. By all accounts, the boys involved in this crime were made into examples of how harsh court administered penalties can be, but none of it matters of one of the boys is innocent.

Jordan Cunliffe was 15-years old at the time of this terrible, tragic event that robbed the life of a father of three. Without question, there are no words to describe this callous and tragic event that did not cost one life, but four if you think about it.

The problem with all of it, is that Jordan is legally blind, and he says he didn't lay a hand on Mr. Newlove. The prosecution contended that he was guilty - that he could see the crime, and encouraged it.

Yet as the Guardian wrote of the incident:

For years, he has suffered from acute keratoconus, an eye condition. A medical report produced at the trial stated: "He is eligible to be registered as a blind person and is unable to perform any tasks for which vision is necessary." The report was accepted by the prosecution and read to the jury.

Janet Cunliffe rallying for her son Jordan.

He was still convicted in an emotionally charged trial. The 2007 incident was used as an example by the Conservative party's David Cameron, then leader of the opposition, who pointed to the death of Mr. Newlove as a symbol of "broken Britain".

The Guardian described the widow Helen Newlove's rage against the three convicted youths as "unrelenting".

Newlove, who supports capital punishment – she told reporters in 2008 that the UK should have the death penalty – believes the trio convicted of killing her husband should never be released from prison.

While it is always natural for a mother to rally for her son, the conviction of Jordan Cunliffe, based on the existing evidence, truly seems full of holes.

From my perspective, it appears that he was convicted under a response to public pressure, rather than on the actual merits of the case.

“

Baroness Newlove, the victim's wife, continually appears in the media saying her husband was kicked in the head forty times and that my son stood and watched while this happened. This simply is not true. Garry Newlove died due to a single blow to the neck and this was inflicted by one person. As Jordan wore no shoes and had no marks to his hands or his feet, this proves he played no part in any attack, and more importantly as Jordan was blind, to stand and watch as Baroness Newlove claims is something he most certainly could not do.

”

Jordan's mother says the case is an important one that shows just how unjust this legal principle is. It brings into the picture a unique problem: victim's families do not always understand what is happening during the trial; who is guilty or why. A select committee brief inquiry recently concluded this legal principle is "confusing for juries".

Jordan Cunliffe, who is legally blind, was sent to life in prison at 15 for standing near a crime that took place, even though he had nothing to do with it.

“

If a blind 15-year old child can can slip through the net then this can happen to absolutely anyone. People need to start realising just how vulnerable they are if this law stays as it is. People need to show their support and speak out, no one should be made to take responsibility for someone elses actions, especially if they if they have no knowledge of that other persons actions, and the public need to do this now so that this does not have to happen to them or anyone else.

”

Janet stresses that the Tuesday, 26th June event, that will be held from 7:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. at The Tabernacle, 35 Powis Square, London, WA112AY, is extremely important.

A symbol of the growing awareness of the situation facing so many, is the fact that the Rapper Goddaz has written his latest single about Joint Enterprise, and he will be performing it at the Tabernacle and releasing it on the same day. As a staunch supporter of the campaign he will be donating all the proceeds to the JENGbA Campaign. Click image of the CD cover below, or here to download full size PDF with more details about the 26 June event. More entertainment is planned for this special evening; Alabama 3 will appear, along with other high profile guests.

Janet Cunliffe concluded by saying, "I know it will not be possible for everyone to attend, but please be aware, donate to the campaign or inform anyone you think may be interested."

Click image or here to download full size PDF

JOINT ENTERPRISE: NOT GUILTY by ASSOCIATION (JENGbA) is a grassroots campaign
supporting prisoners who have been convicted under joint enterprise but who are not
guilty of the index offence. We are all volunteers who have a loved one in prison for
something they did not do. We are campaigning to highlight the abuse of "joint
enterprise" to convict innocent people, including children, who are serving
mandatory LIFE sentences.

What is JOINT ENTERPRISE?

Joint Enterprise is an archaic doctrine that was introduced hundreds of
years ago to outlaw duelling. It means anyone associated with someone who
commits a crime can be convicted alongside them for the same offence.

PLEASE SUPPORT US – see our website www.jointenterprise.co

Or come along to our fundraiser in London on Tuesday 26th

Sources:

www.jointenterprise.co

Joint enterprise law questioned by mother of teen convict Eric Allison - The Guardian

Birmingham Six - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birmingham pub bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voices Unheard: A Study of Irish Travellers in Prison. Conn Mac Gabhann. Irish Chaplincy in Britain. 2011.

Download report here

"For a long time it was virtually impossible to get our voice heard"

Joint enterprise, racism and BME communities

By Liz Fekete

1 February 2012, 5:00pm

An interview with Gloria Morrison, Campaign Coordinator of JENGbA (Joint Enterprise - Not Guilty by Association) which is a prisoners' support group made up of the friends and families of people convicted under the doctrine of joint enterprise.

Gloria Morrison with Jimmy McGovern, the patron of JENGbA (Pic: Dr Andrew Green)

Liz Fekete: Since its launch in 2010, JENGbA has pointed out that the law on joint enterprise is a mess, and that hundreds of people have been convicted of serious crimes, such as murder, that they did not commit. Now, following public hearings in October 2011, the Justice Select Committee has called for reform on the grounds that 'the lack of clarity ... on joint enterprise is unacceptable'. Do you see the Committee report on joint enterprise as a vindication of your campaign?

Gloria Morrison: Absolutely! What you have to realise is that for a long time it was virtually impossible to get our voice heard. One problem is that the law is extremely complicated. The doctrine of joint enterprise, also known as common purpose, forms part of the laws of secondary liability which has evolved through common law. In cases of murder it holds that the secondary party is liable for murder on the basis of foresight of the principal party's action. It's all very technical, and there's all sorts of caveats, and qualifications. So if it's really hard to get people to understand what the law's about, it's going to be hard to get your criticisms across.

But there is a second, much deeper problem, here. There is a lot of anger directed against campaigners against miscarriages of justice if those campaigners are friends and families of those convicted for serious crimes, especially murder. We are always mindful that these crimes have victims, and that murder is a heinous crime. So it's not easy for a prisoners' support group to get its voice heard, particularly if many of the cases it deals with are convictions for murder. But we are a grassroots campaign and there are a lot of us. We just kept hammering away, and we forced the issue. To be fair though, ever since the (then) Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips stated in 2006 that the law was unfair, there has been a lot of disquiet in the legal world about joint enterprise, and a legal campaign has run parallel to ours. The Committee on the Reform of Joint Enterprise was set up by lawyers and eminent legal people, and they said that the application of joint enterprise was a mess. But we do believe that the issue would not have been taken up by the Justice Select Committee if there hadn't been a grassroots campaign.

Tell us how the law affects BME communities specifically.

GM: Well, let's first look at the data. (A vexed issue in itself, as the government does not keep any data on joint enterprise convictions, which makes it hard to categorically prove that it's a discriminatory law.) When JENGbA gave evidence to the Justice Committee in October, 256 people challenging their convictions under the laws had contacted us. (Since then, we are getting between five to ten new cases a week.) But if you take this original data, you find that of these 256 cases, 152 are from BME communities - African-Caribbean, Asian, Irish, Travellers etc. This also reflects the areas of the country where the police and CPS have a greater tendency to use joint enterprise. While the families we represent come from all over the country (save the south-east, we don't have any cases there), it is in the bigger cities - Bradford, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, London -where the law is used the most, and these are the cities where more BME people live. Sixty per cent of the prisoners we are now in contact with are from BME communities. Overwhelmingly, our prisoners come from poor neighbourhoods and because of cuts to legal aid they have often been failed by poor legal representation, getting very bad advice at the time of their arrest.

But it's also important to point out that JENGbA is made up of people from all ethnic backgrounds. In fact we were started by two white women, myself (I am second generation Irish) and Jan Cunliffe. We got together after we were interviewed for the Panorama programme 'Lethal Enterprise'. I was interviewed because I had been supporting my son's best friend, Kenneth Alexander, an African-Caribbean lad who was 19 at the time of his conviction for murder, even though the judge confirmed he did not have a weapon and did not take part in the fight which tragically led to the loss of another young man's life. Jan, who is from Warrington, is the mother of Jordan Cunliffe, 15 at the time of his conviction for the joint enterprise murder of Garry Newlove, even though Jordan is blind, had no contact with the victim and the court accepted he did not inflict the single fatal blow which killed Mr Newlove. So while the law affects all communities, irrespective of ethnicity, there is no doubt in our minds that the way it is applied by the police and CPS disproportionately affects BME communities.

Is the law used particularly against youth from BME communities?

GM: Joint enterprise is a sledgehammer in the hands of the police and the CPS when it comes to fighting 'gangs'. The whole widening of the application of the law in recent years is totally linked to the police's approach to knife crimes. Now anyone, who has a modicum of understanding about the reality of young people's lives, knows that the joint enterprise laws do not deter young kids from carrying knives. But instead of having a real debate as to why young men, in particular, feel unsafe on the streets, we have all stood by while the police mis-use the law to scoop up young people at the scene of knife crimes. This is why we say joint enterprise is a lazy law, because it allows the police and CPS to secure multiple convictions, in cases where they are unable or unwilling to gather evidence, including forensic evidence that could prove categorically which individual was responsible for the crime.

If you take a look at JENGbA cases, approximately 30 per cent of the cases we have dealt with so far involve particularly serious offences carried out by young people who are perceived to be part of a gang. But we know our data is not giving the full picture. We've encountered many problems here. For a long time, we could not contact prisoners held in YOI's [young offender institutions] because we only had a PO Box, which they were not allowed to write to. So that was one problem. But there is also a complexity when it comes to the way young people handle their sentence - issues like loyalty (or is it fear) of their peers - which we as adults, find it hard to get a handle on. But we also feel there is a reluctance amongst the families of young people, particularly in the black community, to come forward. Could it be that because of the whole media furore around 'black on black crime', because of Operation Trident and the way the gangs issue is seen as a black issue, that these families feel somehow that they are also guilty by association, that they should not make a fuss, that they will hounded by the media if they come forward and campaign? One African-Caribbean mother in JENGbA believes it's because criminalisation has become accepted in the black community, that most black people know someone in prison, and they just don't talk about it anymore.

We were quite clear in our submission to the Justice Select Commitee and in all the subsequent media interviews that the widening application of joint enterprise has nothing to do with targeting organised gangs, major criminal conspiracies, drug traffickers etc. The main targets are groups of young people gathering in the streets, or adults caught up in the kinds of random violence that are a depressingly familiar feature of poor neighbourhoods.

One thing that the Leveson Inquiry should look at is the unhealthy relationship that has developed between the police and the media. Our families are absolutely crushed by the way the newspapers report the so-called high-profile cases. What we find is that the facts of the cases are totally sensationalised in newspapers, with a steady trickle of prejudicial information, citing unverified 'police sources'. These stories even make up the names of gangs - such as 'MDP' 'Abbatoir Gang' 'Market Street Boys'...

Presumably this media sensationalism makes it much easier to secure convictions?

GM:Exactly! Because it makes for a salacious story, elevates the case into a cause célèbre and establishes a highly prejudicial environment in which to secure convictions. Now, if a jury sees five young black friends in the dock, they don't see five individuals, but one black gang. The jury might be influenced by racist media stereotypes, and because of this they may find it difficult to separate, apportion responsibility, determine culpability. Seven black kids in the dock immediately becomes a dangerous black gang, because that is exactly the way members of the jury are taught to see black boys by the media.

We even had to point this out to the Select Committee, prior to the hearings. We contacted the clerks as an image was used on the committee's website to illustrate the fact that the inquiry was going to take place which in our view played into exactly these frameworks. The picture used was of two kids in hoodies, they looked black, and were lurking in a doorway. We told them that the choice of such image just served to reinforce dominant perceptions that joint enterprise is a way of dealing with feral youth and gangs, particularly black gangs. We raised this with the clerks, and to their credit they went away and removed the image from the website immediately.

So racism comes in to play with convictions under the joint enterprise laws, yet Gary Dobson and David Norris have just been convicted under the same joint enterprise laws for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Isn't this contradictory?

GM: Well, I don't see a contradiction at all. The same reasons why Doreen and Neville Lawrence could not get justice are the same reasons that black kids convicted under joint enterprise can't get justice today - it's the same issue of poor policing, just different times and different issues. When Stephen was killed, the police didn't even bother to secure the evidence at the crime scene. It works in a very similar way with joint enterprise. And let's ask ourselves this: joint enterprise has been around for a long time, why didn't the police use it at the time of Stephen's murder? The way I see it, the convictions of Dobson and Norris are not a victory for joint enterprise. All that it proves is that the police pursue the law when they want to, not when it is right, and not when it is just. For eighteen years they could not secure a conviction of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, yet the prisoners we represent have been convicted on very little evidence, and this mostly circumstantial, certainly not forensic evidence. That's why we have always said that joint enterprise is a lazy law that allows for lazy policing.

The Justice Select Committee has asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue guidelines on the proper threshold for prosecutions under joint enterprise. If you were advising Keir Starmer what would you ask him to do?

GM: We are currently working with lawyers to draft our own guidelines. One thing for sure is that it has to be used much more sparingly and with greater care. It must not be used as a convenient way of sweeping up potential defendants, including bystanders, and there must be a much tighter definition of foresight or intention. Degrees of culpability should be reflected in subsequent sentencing. What we want to do is get a meeting with Keir Starmer, and make sure that JENGbA, and the lawyers we work with, are part of any process prior to the issuing of the new guidelines. We are in the best position to understand how the law has failed - and we should be part of the process of change. In our evidence to the Committee, we were quite clear that the misapplication of the joint enterprise law is not just a subject demanding of legal remedies in the future. The families of prisoners, who have borne the emotional toll of a miscarriage of justice, have been denied legal remedies in the past. That is why we are calling for a retrospective review of all joint enterprise convictions. Once the guidelines are out, we can use them as a benchmark against which to review all our cases. And then we can see just how many people would not have been convicted in the past, if the guidelines had been followed then. We are going to get this retrospective change, come what may.

The campaign had an uphill struggle, but now you are getting a massive amount of press coverage. Do you think the climate is changing, and if so why?

GM: I do think there's been a sea-change. It's been very difficult for us. As I've said, we are friends and families of people convicted for serious crimes. People have been killed and that is awful. But what we have seen in recent years, and this is not easy to say, is the politicisation of certain victim organisations, that have become very close to the police, and may also, at some point, have received funding from the Home Office. A few of these groups stand for a certain sort of 'vengeance culture' and many of their members even argue for the return of the death penalty. (Remember that one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice which was also prosecuted as a joint enterprise was that of Derek Bentley and he was hung!)[1] In this climate, it has not been easy for us to show that our prisoners' and their families are victims too. Some of them, like Jordan Cunliffe, who is also disabled, were children when they were convicted and have been locked away for years for a crime they did not commit. It is not easy to talk of prisoners as victims in today's climate.

Meeting up : Gloria with Luk, Mark and Lee  

However, we saw in the response to the Justice Select Committee that there has been something of a change, even in the BBC, where for the first time we have been invited on to television news and onto radio programmes like Today. Our voice has been sought and listened to. We have been given fair time to present our case. I do believe that something is kicking in, in society. Maybe there is, somewhere out there, an innate sense of justice, about what is fair, about what is wrong. We feel that now we have a foot in the door.

Where does the campaign go from here?

GM: Education is really important. We want to continue our educative role, telling young people about this law, about the dangers about being caught up with an incident that they couldn't foresee. In the past, we had a small start-up grant, but this is long gone. We don't need a lot, but we do need an office because we are a campaign that is growing. We do need money and we need stamps. We write letters to all the prisoners who contact us, and we send out a regular newsletter. This is a huge cost in itself and one paid for by the prisoners or their families. It's not fair. We consider joint enterprise along with the question of the IPPs [indeterminate sentences for prisoners on the grounds of public protection] the biggest injustices in the criminal justice system today. We need stamps ... we need an office ... we are a campaign with legs ... we need a retrospective review of the law ... Only then will we stop.

 

[1] Derek William Bentley was hanged in 1953 after being convicted for his part in the murder of a police officer. He was granted a posthumous pardon in 1998.

The Institute of Race Relations is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

Outside the law : stories from Guantanamo

Chicago: Screening of “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo”

 

When: Saturday, January 14, 2012

1:00 pm Introduction
1:15 pm Screening: “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (74 minutes)
2:30 – 4:00 pm Discussion and Question & Answer Session

Speakers: Andy Worthington, Candace Gorman, Gary A. Isaac, Andy Moss and Debra Sweet.

Location: Loyola University
School of Law,
25 E. Pearson, Chicago, IL 60611
Room 1040
(Ceremonial Courtroom, 10th floor)

For his first ever visit to Chicago, Andy Worthington will attend a screening of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington), and a Q&A sessions afterwards, with Guantánamo attorneys Candace Gorman, Gary A. Isaac and Andy Moss, and Debra Sweet, National Director, The World Can’t Wait.

UK Film Premiere: ‘Death in Camp Delta’

When: Thursday 12th January, from 6:30-9:00 pm

Where: The Curzon Cinema, Screen3 (Soho) 99 Shaftesbury Avenue, London W1D 5DY

Speakers/Details:

On 9 June 2006, three Guantanamo detainees mysteriously died inside the base. The prison authorities claimed that the detainees had taken their own lives. The parents of the detainees knew their sons were killed.

This is the horrifying story about one of the deceased, Yasser Al-Zahrani from Saudi Arabia. He was only 17 years old when he was kidnapped and shipped to Guantanamo in 2002. His father has filed a case against Donald Rumsfeld; “They tortured him. Then they killed him and returned him to me in a box, cut up.”

The Norweigen filmmaker, Erling Borgen, has been to seven countries and worked for three years with this documentary. He interviews released Guantanamo detainees, lawyers representing the Guantanamo prisoners, and describes a father’s struggle to find out the truth about what happened to his son.

The film features former Guantanamo prisoners Omar Deghayes, Moazzam Begg, Al Jazeera’s Sami al-Hajj, survivor of the brutal massacre at Qala-i-Jangi, Walid al-Hajj, and Colonel Talal al-Zahrani, father of Yasser.

A Question & Answer session will follow the film. The panel includes the film director Erling Borgen, Yasser’s father Colonel Talal al-Zahrani, CagePrisoners Director and former detainee Moazzam Begg, and Reprieve Legal Director Cori Crider. Although the event is free, tickets must be booked in advanced: Click here for booking information.

For all enquiries, please contact CagePrisoners on (44) 203 167 4416, or email asim@cageprisoners.com.

Get the latest build-up to the anniversary by following Reprieve on twitter at ReprieveUK, via the hashtag #GTMO10yrs, LaaTansa, and CagePrisoners.

You can find out more about Guantanamo by visiting the Reprieve timeline and statistics page. Click here to watch a BBC report about Obama’s broken promise, featuring Clive Stafford Smith.

Un exemple à suivre : la marche des familles des détenus décédés en prison 29 octobre 2011

United Families & Friends Annual demo 2011

Annual march against deaths in custody

Published October 27, 2011

United Families and Friends Campaign (UFFC) Protest and Rally Against Custody Deaths and Abuse

 

Saturday 29th October • 12.30pm
Assemble Nelsons Column
Trafalgar Square
London WC2N 5DN
Silent Procession along Whitehall followed by Noisy Protest at Downing Street!  
» Download Flyer Here

ALL WELCOME – PLEASE WEAR BLACK • BRING YOUR CAMPAIGN’S/GROUP’S BANNER

UFFC is a coalition of families and friends of those that have died in the custody of the police and prison officers as well as those who are killed in secure psychiatric hospitals. It includes the families of Roger Sylvester, Leon Patterson, Rocky Bennett, Alton Manning, Christopher Alder, Brian Douglas, Joy Gardner, Aseta Simms, Ricky Bishop, Paul Jemmont, Harry Stanley, Glenn Howard, Mikey Powell, Jason McPherson, Lloyd Butler, Azelle Rodney, Sean Rigg, Habib Ullah, Olaseni Lewis, Smiley Culture, Kingsley Burrell, Demetre Fraser and Mark Duggan to name but a few.

Together we are building a network for collective action to end deaths in custody.
Further info contact United Families & Friends Campaign: contactuffc@gmail.com or info@uffc-campaigncentral.net

Website: http://uffc-campaigncentral.net/

Who We Are

The United Families and Friends Campaign is a coalition of families and friends of those that have died in the custody of police and prison officers as well as those who are killed in secure psychiatric hospitals. It includes the families of Roger Sylvester, Leon Patterson, Rocky Bennett, Alton Manning, Christopher Alder, Brian Douglas, Joy Gardner, Aseta Simms, Ricky Bishop, Paul Jemmott, Harry Stanley, Glenn Howard,... Mikey Powell, Jason Mcpherson and Sean Rigg to name but a few. Together we are building a network for collective action to end deaths in custody.


What we believe

 
• That failure of State officials to ensure the basic right to life is made worse by the failure of the State to ever prosecute those responsible for custody deaths.

• That the failure to prosecute those responsible for deaths in custody sends the message that the State can act with impunity.


What We Demand

 
• Deaths in police custody must be investigated by a body that is genuinely independent of the police.

• Prison deaths must be subject to a system of properly funded investigation that is completely independent of the Prison Service.

• Officers involved in custody deaths be suspended until investigations are completed.

• Prosecutions should automatically follow 'unlawful killing' verdicts at inquests.

• Police forces are made accountable to the communities that they serve.

• Immediate Legal Aid and full disclosure of information be made to the relatives of the victims for investigations, inquests and subsequent prosecutions.

• Officers responsible for deaths should face criminal charges, even if retired.

• CCTV to be placed in the back of all police vehicles

March 2011 photos Harmit Athwal

 

 

NEW ESC project : Prospero's Prison / call for Freelancers

---

news & events:

IN DEVELOPMENT:

Prospero's Prison

Revenge or Reconciliation?

Prospero’s Prison will be a modern adaptation of Shakespeare’s The Tempest. It is a tale of misplaced trust feeding ambition that leads to a brother’s betrayal.

Prospero, a successful criminal, is set up, framed and imprisoned by his scheming ambitious brother Antonio and his crew.

The Island becomes a prison in post-conflict Northern Ireland. In this world, the daily battle for survival rages between the savage and the civilized for supremacy.

After twelve years in jail, a wiser and more powerful Prospero has a dilemma – how to repay his brother’s betrayal? Revenge is sweet, but the seed of reconciliation is growing.

We plan to use a cross-community group of ex-prisoners as cast and locate the film in Belfast Prison (Crumlin Road Gaol), a panopticon that is becoming a cultural museum.

Prospero’s Prison is timely in the context of Northern Ireland’s peace process. For so long in the history of Northern Ireland, revenge has been the reply to violence, perpetuating the cycle of destruction. For this reason, The Tempest is a story worth re-telling for the lessons it can teach us about the wisdom of experience leading to forgiveness and reconciliation.

Want to be an important part of this project? Use the donate button at the bottom of this page!

---

CALL FOR FREELANCERS
Due to an increase in work ESC are currently recruiting for upcoming projects and are looking for experienced creative people to go on a Register of Interested Freelancers for the following roles:
ºCameraperson
ºEditor (Final Cut Pro)
ºProject Manager
ºDesigner
ºProducer (film)
ºDrama facilitator
ºFilm director
ºYouth facilitator
ºFundraiser

ESC is an award-winning arts education charity working in drama and film. We work alongside people who are marginalized for many reasons:
ºPrisoners
ºEx-prisoners
ºYouth at risk
ºRefugees/Asylum Seekers
ºSubstance misusers
ºPeople with mental health issues
ºHomeless youth

If you are interested in cutting edge film and drama work and can sign up to our values of honesty, integrity, respect and trust please get in touch.
Self-employed freelancers with UTR numbers essential.

Own transport preferred.
Please email CVs, a list of referees and showreels (where relevant) to info@esc-film.com

JAILHOUSE LAWYERS PRISONERS DEFENDING PRISONERS v THE USA

From death row in Pennsylvania, launch of a new book in the UK: JAILHOUSE LAWYERS

Date: Thursday, 30 June 2011 - 4:00pm - 5:00pm

Location: House of Lords, Committee Room 4

Foreword by Angela Y. Davis, Introduction by Selma James Published by Crossroads Books Price: £11.99 (See order form below.) Free to Prisoners. Donations welcome to help cover costs.

JAILHOUSE LAWYERS PRISONERS DEFENDING PRISONERS v THE USA By Mumia Abu-Jamal Hosted by Lord Ramsbotham Former HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Speakers: ♦ Selma James Crossroads Books editor, Introduction to Jailhouse Lawyers ♦ John Hirst Ex-prisoner, won European Court decision for prisoners’ right to vote. ♦ Flo Krause Barrister who represented John Hirst in the European Court ♦ Benjamin Zephaniah, poet, ex-prisoner ♦ Ian Macdonald QC Wrote letter to US court on racism in Abu-Jamal’s trial, signed by over 100 UK lawyers ♦ Emmanuel De Silva, jailhouse lawyer ♦ Niki Adams, Legal Action for Women

---

From death row, award-winning journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal introduces us to fellow prisoners who litigate against their jailers, risking punishment or even death, to win justice for themselves and other prisoners.

“This is the story,” he writes, “of law learned not in the ivory towers of multi-billion-dollar endowed universities [but] in the hidden, dank dungeons of America – the Prisonhouse of Nations.”

Selma James’s Introduction presents the parallel universe of UK jailhouse lawyers who, like their US counterparts, are leading a justice movement inside prisons.

UK prisoners, denied the vote, are campaigning for this fundamental right. A legal challenge brought by a jailhouse lawyer supported by a dedicated legal team won a European Court ruling in 2004 that a blanket ban on votes for prisoners violates their human rights. Yet the government, in opposing votes for prisoners, acts as if those of us who are prisoners are less human, and deny that prisons and what goes on in them also frame the kind of society we all inhabit.

The UK publication of Jailhouse Lawyers is an opportunity for prisoners’ campaign for the vote and other efforts for fundamental reforms to be more widely known and supported.

WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID ABOUT JAILHOUSE LAW YERS Anger with accuracy. Outstanding. Ian Macdonald QC Deserves to be read by policymakers. Lord David Ramsbotham, former HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Illuminates what is possible for jailhouse lawyers in Britain, Ben Gunn, UK jailhouse lawyer A champion of law in an institution that is lawless. Benjamin Zephaniah, poet, ex-prisoner Gallant prisoners who do battle with the authorities. Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve A brilliant analysis of law and lawyers as instruments of injustice. Lord Anthony Gifford QC, UK barrister and attorney, Jamaica A must read for prisoners and prison reform groups. John Hirst, former jailhouse lawyer In the grand tradition of prison writing. Frances Crook, Director, Howard League for Penal Reform An international learning tool – of particular importance to the Caribbean, Richard Small, attorney, Jamaica The truth about death row and its distinguished inhabitants. Niki Adams, Legal Action for Women Make way for inside voices. Everybody should read it. Flo Krause, barrister Mumia Abu-Jamal has once more offered us new ways of thinking about law, democracy, and power. Angela Y. Davis, from the Foreword They learn the law, the procedures, the jargon, and mount an often formidable legal defence. In the process they carve out a life for themselves. Selma James, from the Introduction more reviews

ORDER JAILHOUSE LAWYERS

Order on line at http://allwomencount.net/Publications/Forsalepage.htm or send your order to:

crossroadsbooks@allwomencount.net or by post to Crossroads Books, PO Box 287 London NW6 5QU

Please send me ______ copies of Jailhouse Lawyers. I attach a cheque or postal order for ___________

made out to Crossroads Books. Price: £11.99 (plus 10% for p&p)

Bulk orders: 3 copies £30, 6 copies £55

Free to prisoners. Donations welcome to help cover costs.

Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association

Jengba News Issue March 2011

Teenagers' deaths in custody are needless

The teenage lives lost in custody are due to systemic failures that must be addressed

Deborah Coles

o The Guardian, Friday 6 May 2011

The tragic news that five teenagers have apparently taken their own lives in custody underlines the need for a complete overhaul of the way we treat young people in conflict with the law. These latest are not isolated cases. Since 1990 we have seen the deaths of 31 children aged 14–17 and 117 aged 18-19, the majority self-inflicted.

Our work with bereaved families through arranging their legal representation at inquests has made a significant contribution to exposing what happens behind the closed doors of custody.

We now know, from previous cases, that Joseph Scholes, a 16-year-old with known mental health problems, was incarcerated in brutal conditions that after nine days propelled him to acts of self-harm. In an ultimate act of despair, he made a noose from a bed sheet and attached it to his cell bars.

Gareth Myatt, a 15-year-old boy, died after three members of staff restrained him. They continued despite his protests that he could not breathe and was going to defecate, which he did.

Adam Rickwood, at 14 the youngest child to die in custody, was found hanging hours after being hit on the nose by staff using a painful state-sanctioned "nose distraction technique", subsequently found to be unlawful.

Liam McManus, a 15-year-old serving one month and 14 days for breach of licence, was found hanging from his cell bars, a death the inquest jury decided was due to "systemic failings".

Our research, based on case studies of children, examined the policy issues raised by these deaths and the investigations. It looked at the social and political context and argued for the abolition of penal custody for children, and the need for radical alternatives.

The lives of children and young people in custody are characterised by social inequality, educational failure, drug, alcohol and mental health problems, experience of abuse, bereavement and neglect. Their custodial experience exacerbates and compounds this vulnerability.

We have witnessed inquest after inquest where the same failings are revealed. The starting point is that extremely young people are being remanded and sentenced to custody (sometimes at great distances from home) in institutions that do not have the resources, facilities or trained staff to keep them safe and deal with their complex needs. And yet vulnerable children are still being placed in penal custody, and there has been a reduction in the more child-centred approach offered by secure children's homes. High reconviction rates illustrate the failure of this approach.

Indifference to these deaths has coincided with increasing demonisation and criminalisation of young people and the use of punitive political rhetoric. "Antisocial" young people are seen as undeserving and in need of control, discipline and punishment rather than care and support.

Many of these tragedies were entirely preventable and amount to a failure by the state in its duty of care. Investigations and inquests are case specific, held in isolation, subject to serious delay and do not ensure that lessons are learned.

The youth justice system needs more profound scrutiny and there is an urgent need for a holistic inquiry, in public, to examine the wider systemic and policy issues. Such an inquiry could look at the similarities between cases as well as focusing on child welfare and youth justice policy.

The fact that successive governments have not seen fit to hold such an inquiry smacks of unaccountability and makes it impossible to learn from failures that have cost children and young people their lives. We can only hope that the deaths of five teenagers in prison and young offenders' institutions in as many weeks shocks the government into decisive action.

* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011