Karl Watson

CCRC causes grotesque delays to appeal case
see Private Eye 1243 21 August 2009
and forthcoming issue of Inside Time
full version of this article (pdf) by Bob Woffinden

CPS in denial

This 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.

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
Shippey and then helped him dispose of the body – was the only evidence against Watson.

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
lawyers before his trial and Watson instructed
fresh solicitors, Chapple and Co, to bring a case
before the European court of human rights on
the basis that he had been denied a fair hearing,
in breach of article six. Although he was
informed that the case had been sent to
Strasbourg, he later found that it had never been
submitted. It seems the matter only came to
light after the solicitor in question was asked to
leave the firm, for other reasons. He never
worked in the legal profession again and died
two years ago.

After Watson launched his civil action, Mr
Justice Owen finally gave his judgment last
month. He said that “had there been a hearing
before the ECHR, the likely outcome would have
been a finding of a breach of Article 6”, and he
praised Watson’s new legal team for representing
him pro bono.

The case is now out of time and cannot go to
Europe, but it can be used as part of Watson’s
submission to the criminal cases review
commission. “The case is a double scandal,” said
Maslen Merchant, Watson’s lawyer. “The
prosecution denied my client a fair trial and a
previous defence lawyer denied him the
opportunity to put right the original wrong.”