from Private Eye 1306, 27 January 2012 Now they tell us!Despite refusing to refer this case for a new appeal, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has now disclosed two documents which reveal discrepancies in what was supposed to be a contemporaneous account of the crime given by the chief prosecution witness. One, dating from 1992, had never been disclosed to the defence. |
|||
Published here by kind permission of Private Eye magazine - from Private Eye no. 1276, 23 November 2010 If the CCRC can't understand a simple case like this, is it fit for purpose? |
by Bob Woffinden | ||
When a high court judge said it was highly likely that life-sentence prisoner Karl Watson (Eyes passim) had not had a fair trial, his lawyers believed it only matter of time before they would have a chance to argue his innocence over the murder of his mother’s lover in 1991. But they weren’t allowing for the Criminal
Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which is Watson’s case was first submitted to the CCRC more than 13 years ago, when new evidence that had been kept secret from his original trial cast doubt on his conviction for the murder of John Shippey, a businessman, fraudster and serial womaniser. Shippey’s body was found repeatedly stabbed in the chest in his burned-out car near Merstham, Surrey, after he had been abducted from his home. Watson had originally been excluded from inquiries because he had an alibi. But two years later he was arrested on the evidence of Bruce Cousins, a mechanic who worked with Watson in the motor trade but who was wanted by police for other matters. Cousins was found in possession of what was described as a “script” which he had dictated to his 16-year-old girlfriend incriminating himself and Watson in the murder. (Curiously, she was never called to explain how the script came to be dictated.) He said that he saw Watson stab Shippey and
then helped Watson dispose of the body. But Cousins
had mental health problems and psychiatrists had
warned he would say anything “regardless of his
memory of the facts”. So concerned was one expert
about Cousins’ reliability that he alerted the Crown
Prosecution Service: Cousins had put others in the
frame as well.
But this crucial information was not passed to
Watson’s defence lawyers, either at trial or at his first
appeal in January 1996, when Lord Taylor, then the Lawyers now argue that they were denied the chance to explore whether Cousins was a fantasist or susceptible to false confession. In 2005 Harriet Harman QC, then minister of state at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, wrote to Watson’s MP, Richard Ottaway, admitting that the material concerning Cousins’ psychiatric state had been withheld from the defence. Then, in 2008, Watson successfully sued his former defence lawyers for negligence in their handling of his case. Mr Justice Owen ruled it “likely” that Watson had been denied a fair trial and ordered that his judgment be made available at taxpayers’ expense to enable Watson to “deploy it”. His new legal team duly did this – only for the CCRC to decide that although the judge was clearly saying Watson’s trial was unfair, he did not express an opinion about whether or not the conviction was safe and his ruling was, therefore, open to interpretation. As Maslen Merchant, Watson’s lawyer, told the Eye:
Despite psychiatric reports which said Cousins
was “abnormally susceptible to leading questions”, Watson, now 46, has been in jail for more than 17 years and his case will, like Susan May’s, be raised in the Commons this month questioning whether the CCRC is fit for purpose. See also CCRC 'has failed' - Guardian article by Bob Woffinden 30 November 2010 |
|||
CCRC causes grotesque delays to appeal case CPS in denialThis case was submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1998. The issues are simple, so it was appropriate for their fast track process. In 2008 Mr Justice Watson provided assistance by ruling that Karl Watson had not received a fair trial. The CCRC has recently deferred a decision on this case on the grounds that further work needs to be done! Karl Watson has now spent over 16 years in prison. The main issue in the appeal case is that the Crown Prosecution Service failed to disclose key documents that would have resulted in the complete discrediting of the only evidence against Watson. CPS lawyers denied to the appeal court that these documents existed. So the CPS is responsible for this miscarriage of justice. CCRC chair Richard Foster, appointed recently, was previously head of the CPS. |
|||
Useless lawyers: |
 1223 |
Reproduced by kind permission of PRIVATE EYE www.private-eye.co.uk |
|
A man who has served 17 years for a
murder he says he did not commit has won a high court case for negligence against his former defence solicitors – a victory he hopes may help him finally clear his name. The judge said that but for the solicitors’ failure, Karl Watson, now 46, would have been able to prove years ago that he had not had a fair trial. Watson, a father of four, was jailed in 1991 for the murder of businessman and serial womaniser John Shippey, who had been having an affair with Watson’s mother. Shippey had been repeatedly stabbed in the chest and his body, burned beyond recognition, was found in his car near Mersham, Surrey. Watson was, along with several others, arrested and questioned, but he was released after it was established that he had an alibi. Then, nearly a year and a half later, he was re-arrested. A man called Bruce Cousins had been discovered with a “script” saying that he had been involved in the murder. He later made a statement saying he had been made to do it by Watson. His testimony – that he saw Watson stab At Watson’s failed appeal against conviction in
January 1996, Lord Taylor, then the lord chief
justice, said the crown’s case was put “on the
basis that Mr Cousins as a witness could be relied upon”.
|
But it emerged that there were several psychiatric reports questioning Cousins’ veracity. He was, it seems, extremely suggestible and easily led – to the extent that anxiety over negative feedback would make him change his answers, irrespective of the facts. None of this was disclosed to Watson’s After Watson launched his civil action, Mr The case is now out of time and cannot go to |
||
See alsoMurderer set to appeal playboy murder conviction
|
|||