Blog entry 14th August 2012
Well my case update 'blog' is late this month as yet again my appeal solicitors Rajan Mawji and Riffat Hussain of Harrison Bundey's, Leeds haven't bothered making any progress with my case what-so-ever.
After a significant admission by Kent Police at the end of June I gave Riffat specific instruction to seek disclosure of a vast range of evidence that it is now clear Kent Police and CPS have withheld illegally for nearly thirteen years. On the 9th July Riffat wrote to me informing me that Kent Police had told her that the woman who dealt with disclosure requests wasn't available and therefore our request could not be processed!? I wrote back to Riffat on the 19th July informing her that this was unacceptable as I should not be refused justice on such a flimsy excuse. I've had no response from the offices of Harrison Bundey what-so-ever despite a follow up letter.
It is also of interest that Kent Police are also refusing Michael Stone's legal team the disclosure of illegally withheld forensic evidence for the same reason. This is despite the disclosure of evidence in Michael's case being ordered by a high court judge in his recent judicial review against the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Police withholding evidence that would clear those of us whom are wrongly convicted is common practice and is often found to have occurred in most miscarriages of justice cases. Why is it not being questioned or challenged by those with the power to do so? Even when these abuses come to light the offending police forces and officials are never called to account. Instead they claim clerical errors or state that it was their opinion that the material was of no relevance. Time and time again they get away with it.
Nor does it help those in my position when our representing solicitors cannot be bothered to prosecute our appeal cases with vigour and determination. It is far more profitable for them to draw the process out for as long as possible so that more public funding (legal-aid) can be claimed. Anyone watching the programme 'The Briefs' on ITV will have seen the legal firm 'Tuckers' in action doing just this. I am now strongly of the opinion that every legal firm should be required to perform a percentage of legal aid work every year. For that work there should be a set tariff of fees for which they will be paid no more or no less. At the end of each case the quality of the service that they performed should be audited and if it is found to have fallen short of any measure the legal-aid fee should be reduced or withheld accordingly. Perhaps people in my position might start receiving an improved level of service and legal-aid would not be ransacked by buccaneer legal firms.
Now some may be asking why I haven't sacked Harrison-Bundey's and instructed new representation. The thought has crossed my mind, but then nearly 18 months will have been wasted and I'll be back to square-one. So instead I am going to make Rajan and Riffat do the jobs they are being paid for by legal-aid and let the U.K. know how poor their client care is through this blog.
Until next month....