DARREN SOUTHWARD

THE TEENAGER WHO PLEADED GUILTY TO A MURDER HE DIDN’T COMMIT

by Andrew Green

As he waited to go up to be tried in Manchester Crown Court on 12 July 1989, Darren Southward received unexpected news from his solicitor, Michael Mackey of Burton Copeland in Manchester. Darren was given to understand that if he changed his own plea from not guilty to guilty, and took sole responsibility for the crime with which he was charged, then his co-defendant would go free.

His co-defendant was his own mother, Ann. The charge was murder. His sisters were brought in to talk over the dilemma that faced him. They feared that their younger brother and sister - twins who were then aged nine - would be taken into care if their mother went to prison. Darren had been preparing himself for the terrifying ordeal of a murder trial. All at once he learned that he need not undergo that ordeal - that the morally correct choice was to change his plea, so that his mother would be protected and the family would stay together. It was consistent with the motive that had brought him into confrontation with George Robertson, the man he had killed - the need to protect his family, when no one else would help. Darren was 19 at the time.

But Darren wasn't guilty of murder. Many years before, his parents’ marriage had split up, and later his mother lived with George Robertson, the father of the twins. Robertson became violent towards her, and so in 1984 she left him. But Robertson refused to leave her alone. On one occasion he smashed the windows of her house, and she called the police. He was taken to court and fined, but the amount was derisory, and she felt the law and police offered her no protection in practice. She knew nothing of high court injunctions or supportive organisations. Robertson continued to harass her. ‘He would wait for me when I took the twins to school and jump out on me and punch me in the face,’ Ann told a local newspaper. He was a big man, had previous convictions for violent offences, and was a heavy drinker, known locally as Mad Jock.

Darren desperately wanted to divert Robertson's attention from his mother. Late one night, on the way home with his mother in a taxi, they passed Robertson's house, which Ann pointed out casually. Darren told the driver to stop and got out of the cab, and Ann followed him. They argued on the pavement as she tried to persuade him not go into Robertson's house; it would only make things worse, she insisted. The taxi driver listened to this seemingly endless argument, and, tired of waiting, drove off. Ann gave up and walked home.

The house was in darkness, apparently deserted. Perhaps some damage, the signs of a break in, would distract Robertson for a while, Darren thought. He smashed a small pane of glass and opened the door. There was still no sign of life. But in the lounge he found Robertson sitting asleep in front of the television. Robertson woke up and rose to attack Darren.

If Darren’s trial had gone ahead, presumably the prosecution would have said that Darren entered the house in order to attack Robertson. But Darren was then just a youth, 5ft 4in and slim, and was no match for ‘Mad Jock’, 5ft 11in. He looked round for something which he could use to defend himself. There were tools lying around and he picked up a hammer, with which he hit Robertson several times, until his attacker lost consciousness. Then he ran, the hammer still in his hand. Despite his fear and panic, he ran only to phone box, dialled 999 and asked for an ambulance to go to Robertson’s house. He did not imagine that he had killed Robertson. He waited across the road and watched the ambulance come. But the ambulance staff found only what appeared to be an empty house, and drove off. Darren dialled 999 a second time, and waited to make sure that Robertson was receiving medical help. By then it was too late.

It seemed to Darren, who then knew little about the law except that he should fear it, that he should not risk any association with the death of Robertson, so he threw the hammer into a lake (later he showed police where to look for it) and went into hiding with friends. Officers of the Greater Manchester Police Serious Crime Squad, lead by DS Derek Gardner from Collyhurst police station, put pressure on the whole family by arresting them all. Ann knew where Darren was, but lied to the police about it, trying to protect him, and perhaps because she would not inform on her own son, the police charged her with murder, along with Darren when they eventually caught him. Although nothing connected her with Robertson's death – the police accepted she had not entered the house – she, like Darren, was held on remand, although she had no previous convictions and two small children to care for.

Like Darren, she too was approached by her own solicitor on the morning of the trial. He told her she was facing a sentence of 8 to 14 years if found guilty of murder; if found guilty of manslaughter, she was likely to get 8 years; if she pleaded guilty to manslaughter, she would probably get a sentence no longer than the time she had already spent in prison on remand. To add to the pressure on her, the prosecution added a further charge that same morning, of “wasting police time”. She agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter and the new charge, and received a sentence of three years’ imprisonment. Reunited in the dock after their conferences with their respective lawyers, Ann and Darren heard each other's guilty pleas and sentences with astonishment.

Both felt they had been made to accept the worst possible deal; and they soon came to realise that they had not needed to make a deal. Ann had a very strong case - there was almost no evidence against her, while the taxi driver could support her claim that she did not enter Robertson’s house, and tried to dissuade Darren from doing so. Darren had a strong case that he acted in self defence – but even if the jury members had chosen not to believe him, then at worst they would have convicted him of manslaughter, and he would be free by now, instead of serving a life sentence.

What can we do to help Darren (and Ann and her family, who continue to suffer the effects of this injustice)? This is the only time that INNOCENT has been asked to help someone wrongly convicted on a guilty plea, but the problem is common enough, first exposed in Negotiated Justice (1977), by John Baldwin and Mike McConville. Inexperienced defendants like Darren cannot assess the strength of the case for or against them, while those who can assess the case, the defence lawyers, are subject to financial incentives and pressures of work and court business, all of which favour the quick dispatch of cases by means of guilty pleas. The lawyers working for Darren and Ann were not incompetent: they are experienced solicitors and leading QCs. When they advised guilty pleas, they were doing their work in the normal way and observing normal, system-approved practices. And this makes it hard to challenge the outcome. But the leading case [Turner 1970] is clear. Counsel, Lord Chief Justice Widgery said, ‘will emphasise that the accused must not plead guilty unless he has committed the acts constituting the offence charged... The accused ... must have complete freedom of choice whether to plead Guilty or Not Guilty.’ Darren has never believed himself to be guilty of murder, and did not have ‘complete freedom of choice’ when he changed his plea. He is serving a life sentence for a crime he disputes and for which he has never been tried.

What does ‘life’ mean in practice? When the trial judge was told of the change of plea, he appeared to be surprised too, it seemed to Darren. Acknowledging that there was little evidence of premeditation or that Darren at any stage wanted or expected Robertson to die, the judge recommended a low tariff (the minimum time lifers are required to be kept in prison). The Home Secretary eventually fixed Darren’s tariff at eight years. He has now served sixteen years, despite being a co-operative prisoner who has attended all courses he has been asked to attend – such as anger management – and has never been violent again.

In January 2003 Darren was brought home on a visit to his mother and went on the run. He returned to Manchester six months later and was recaptured. Darren argues that he survived during this period by getting casual work, and did not commit any crimes, and this shows he would not be a danger to the public if he were released. We hope that the prison authorities will recognise that Darren should now be prepared for early release.

Please write to Darren and tell him you’ve heard about his case, and that you, at least, are aware of the injustice he has suffered.

Darren Southward AK3761
HMP Garth
Ulnes Walton Lane
Leyland
Lancs. PR26 8NE

See also article on this case in North East Manchester Advertiser