Articles reprinted at this site:

Convictions quashed - Daily Telegraph, 18 July 2000
Interview with Raphael Rowe - The Guardian, 22 July 2000
Comment by Jeremy Hardy - The Guardian, 22 July 2000
Made for miscarriages - Joel Bennathan on disclosure in the wake of the M25 Three appeal
The Times, Law Report, 25 July 2000 - The appeal judges' judgment
Interview with Michael Davis - The Observer, 23 July 2000

The Guardian, April 1999 - Case referred back to Court of Appeal by the CCRC
The Guardian, February 2000 - European Court of Human Rights rules that original trial was unfair
The Observer, August 1997 - Article on Raphael Rowe

The so-called M25 three who were jailed for life 10 years ago after being found guilty of murder and robbery were freed yesterday when their convictions were quashed as unsafe by the Court of Appeal.

In a reserved judgment, three judges said they could not be sure that, if "irregularities" that came to light since the trial of the three men had not occurred, a reasonable jury would have returned verdicts of guilty. In the original trial, the prosecution had failed to disclose that an associate of the three defendants, a police informer, told police that another man and not Randolph Johnson - one of the defendants - had taken part in the crimes.

The defence was also not told that the informer, Norman Duncan, was paid a reward. Police and Duncan, a key prosecution witness, had been involved in a "profoundly disturbing" conspiracy to give perjured evidence, the judges found. Ten years on it was "not appropriate to order a retrial", said Lord Justice Mantell, who was sitting with Mr Justice Blofeld and Mrs Justice Rafferty.

But their ruling that the convictions were unsafe was "not a finding of innocence, far from it", added the judge. Michael Davis, Raphael Rowe and Johnson, whose cases had been referred back to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, were in court to hear the judges announce that their convictions "must be quashed and the appeals allowed".

The decision brought a buzz of approval from relatives and friends who packed the court and public gallery. Since their convictions for a series of crimes committed near the M25 one night in December 1988, which included the murder of a hairdresser, Peter Hurburgh, causing grievous bodily harm with intent and several robberies, the three have vigorously protested their innocence.

All were jailed for life for the murder and given substantial sentences for the other offences. Davis, who had previously admitted to robbery, and Johnson, who had admitted to robbery and rape, committed on a separate occasion, were also given concurrent terms of 10 and 12 years respectively.

At the first hearing of appeals against the M25 convictions in 1993, the three judges ruled that the case against them remained formidable and that there was no room for "even a lurking doubt" about the safety of their convictions. But in April last year, the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, saying it was concerned about the failure to disclose to the defence a police message about the informer.

The commission's investigations also revealed that a member of the trial jury, who turned out to be the jury foreman, had visited one or more scenes of the crimes, unknown to the trial judge. Before the appeal hearing, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled in February that Davis and Rowe had been denied a fair trial because the prosecution had used public interest immunity certificates in failing to disclose Duncan's status as a police informant.

But the appeal judges rejected claims that this judgment dealt a "knockout blow" to the safety of the convictions, saying the questions of whether they had a fair trial and of whether their convictions were safe had to be kept separate. But they agreed that failing to make known Duncan's status as an informant, together with the fact that he received a reward, was a "material irregularity" and "rightly condemned" by the Strasbourg court.

Giving judgment yesterday, Lord Justice Mantell said Duncan had given information that led to a police raid on a house in Sydenham, south London, where Davis and Rowe were arrested and property from the M25 robberies recovered.

At the trial, Duncan had told the jury he was not arrested until Dec 22. He had not told them anything about his earlier voluntary stay at Reigate police station and, because he was concealing his status as an informant, he was forced to lie about what took place in an interview with the police. That could only have happened in collusion with the police and was "no less than a conspiracy to give perjured evidence".

Although the case against all three and the evidence against Rowe on three of the alleged offences was "overwhelming", the court had to follow the approach that, assuming the irregularities had not occurred, "would a reasonable jury have been bound to return verdicts of guilty? In all conscience we cannot say that it would".

Outside the court Rowe's solicitor, Jim Nichol, said he was "delighted" with the judgment. There had been "too many problems" with the case and "too many liars", he said. His client would been seeking compensation for the time he had spent in prison. The victims had said from the outset that it was two whites and one black man who committed the offences but they "weren't listened to", he claimed. Rowe, Davis and Johnson are all black.

Davis said it had been "a very long and hard battle to prove my innocence". They were "innocent" regardless of what the judges had said.

Raphael Rowe thought the long fight to clear his name would end the day his convictions were quashed and he walked free from court.

But when the moment finally came at lunchtime on Monday - 10 years into a life sentence for a murder and robberies he insists he did not commit - the euphoria quickly turned to anger.

In his eyes, there had been another injustice. Instead of sympathising with Rowe and his co-defendants Michael Davis and Randolph Johnson, the court of appeal could not have been more grudging.

The men, known as the M25 Three, were being released only on technicalities. Lord Justice Mantell finished his judgment by saying: "This is not a finding of innocence, far from it."

That night, Rowe and Davis met at a relative's house to share a glass of champagne, but it was not much of a celebration. When Rowe, 32, woke up, he was still fighting. "I know the judges were involved in a damage limitation exercise. But what they said was diabolical.

"They didn't say I was guilty, but that's how everyone interpreted it. I have battled every day of the last 12 years to prove I was set up by the police, to prove I am not a murderer. It has been my passion. I am free now, but it's as if I'm still inside. I'm still trying to get my voice heard."

Friday, December 16, 1988 is the date which changed his life. In the early hours, three masked men, one carrying a knife, another a gun, surprised a gay couple, Peter Hurburgh and Alan Eley, who were making love in a car parked in a field near Fickleshaw, Surrey.

They were beaten and robbed. The gang poured petrol around them and someone lit a cigarette. Mr Eley passed out and when he woke his lover was dead. He had suffered a heart attack.

Next, the three men drove to a house in Oxted, 10 miles away. They stole rings and jewellery, and stabbed a man, Timothy Napier. At 5am, they robbed a couple living in a house in Fetcham, 20 miles from Oxted. The victims were certain that one, possibly two, of the robbers were white. The police were equally certain that Rowe, Davis and Johnson - three black men - were responsible.

All had criminal records; Davis, a childhood friend of Rowe's, pleaded guilty to a robbery committed days before the M25 offences. Johnson, a friend of Davis, had raped a woman on the same job. Rowe had previous convictions, one for malicious wounding.

"I've done things I regret. I was 18 in 1988, and when you are that age you are selfish and you don't realise the impact of what you are doing. You don't see the consequences. But murder is not something I could ever do."

Rowe detests Johnson. "I didn't know Randolph before all this and I don't want to know him now. We don't speak. I abhor the fact he raped a woman. We were in the same dock, but that's it as far as I am concerned."

He is increasingly estranged from Davis. Last Saturday they shared a cell at Pentonville prison for the first time in 12 years. Rowe, who was on the top bunk, woke in the middle of the night to hear Davis screaming in his sleep.

"Michael and I have developed in different ways. Prison affects everyone. I've seen some terrible things - fights where men have had boiling water thrown on them in a row over a bit of tobacco and their skin has peeled off. Some people crumble and collapse in the system. Knowing I was innocent kept me going. Perhaps Michael and Randolph didn't have that. They already had long sentences to serve for the other crimes."

Rowe was convicted chiefly on the evidence of a lover, Kate Williamson, and a man, Norman Duncan, who was living in a hostel in Sydenham, south London, with Rowe.

Williamson had spent the evening of December 15 with Rowe, Davis, and a group of friends. There were witnesses to say they were in the house from late afternoon, went out to collect videos, and returned at 12.30am.

The prosecution relied on these times being wrong. Williamson claimed Rowe left the house and returned hours later with jewellery.

Rowe says she "told a pack of lies", probably because she was jealous of his girlfriend, Nancy Stanley.

"We watched videos in bed, made love, had a smoke (of marijuana), and then fell asleep. I did get up in the night, but only to go down to Michael's room to get some more dope. Kate was out for the count."

Williamson wrote to Rowe admitting she lied, but later claimed she was coerced into doing it. "You can't believe both of us. Our stories hit head on.

"I don't know what she is doing now, whether she got married, had kids. She disappeared into the shadows after the trial. Perhaps one day she will tell me the truth. Up until our release I hated her for what she did to me."

Now Rowe's anger is focused on Duncan. During the trial, he claimed Rowe asked him to steal a Spitfire car used in the first robbery, and overheard him plotting the raids.

Rowe and his lawyers did not know Duncan was a criminal with numerous convictions who had turned police informer.

And they did not know Duncan spent two days in the rape suite at Reigate police station being informally interviewed about the M25 crimes, and that he had not initially mentioned Johnson as a suspect.

Duncan was keen to talk about rewards. He was paid £10,300 from the Daily Mail which had launched an appeal for information.

Surrey police did not disclose this at the trial - the law did not require them to, and in 1988 there were no procedures for informing the judge.

When Duncan gave evidence, he lied about his collusion with officers. The court of appeal described this as "profoundly disturbing". "It amounts to no less than a conspiracy to give perjured evidence ... it must dent the credibility both of Duncan and the police."

Duncan, who is white, stole the Spitfire. Rowe believes he was involved in the M25 robberies and concocted a story to get himself off the hook. "The police did not fit me up, as much as fit me in.

"When we found out about Duncan, everything started to make sense. The police conspired with Duncan and I now suspect they conspired with Kate Williamson. The only people who had nothing to gain from all this were the victims, who went through an horrific ordeal. They said two of the robbers were white. Why weren't they heard?"

Rowe says he will keep protesting his innocence and will seek compensation for the lost years. He does not have a career to fall back on. He has a son, aged 12, he has never seen.

"He doesn't want to know me because he thinks I am a murderer. That breaks my heart. I have been keeping a diary for the last 12 years. I was writing for him. I hope he will read the diary and realise I'm not the man he thinks I am.

"I'm still working off my anger about what's happened, but it's the final chapter. When this is over, I don't know what I am going to do with my life."

Surrey police say they are bemused by the criticism in the judgment, and will be seeking clarification. "The investigating officers were forced to keep the existence and the identity of the informant secret to protect his life. The law and procedure in place at the time was inadequate to deal with this situation."

The case of the M25 three illustrates how colour-blindness can be convenient

It is now established practice for judges to quash a conviction while suggesting that the appellants are not necessarily innocent. The judiciary has not yet extended this to trials. But expect soon to hear "not guilty" verdicts met with a harrumphing "No smoke without fire, that's what I say" from the bench. This will build to the acquitted being told: "You can't run from us forever", and end with juries being made to stay in hotels until they return guilty verdicts.

At the close of the M25 Three appeal this week, the they-did-it-really judgment went about as far as it can go: "For the benefit of those who have listened to this judgment and those who report it hereafter, this is not a finding of innocence, far from it." What can this possibly be but an incentive to the Sun and the Mail to hound these men forever?

Indeed the Mail seized upon the words with glee, but was remarkably coy about its own part in this miscarriage of justice. For it was the Mail who paid a £10,000 reward to the main prosecution witness in the case, who conspired with police in giving perjured evidence. This, according to the judges, constitutes "material irregularity", in case words like "frame" or "fit-up" were on your lips.

Norman Duncan was already a paid police informant. He admitted, along with two other white men, Jobbins and Griffin, to stealing and disposing of cars used in robberies that left one man dead and another stabbed on December 15-16 1998. They had little choice in these admissions because of evidence linking them to the cars and the stolen goods. But the events in between the cars being procured and dumped they attribute to Raphael Rowe, Michael Davis and Randolph Johnson. Well, I say that, but Duncan, our lucky Daily Mail prize-winner, substituted the name of Johnson after first accusing someone else.

The police seem to have been only too happy to accept that the night's robberies and murder were carried out by three black men, despite eyewitnesses saying that two of the three culprits were white. One, indeed, was said by two separate victims to have had fair hair and blue eyes. Those who are familiar with the case might know that Norman Duncan has fair hair and blue eyes. This does not make him one of the killers, but it does mean that the police perhaps had more reason to be questioning him than to be looking for three black men. One can only speculate about this, because there are no notes or recordings of the weekend conference involving Duncan and the Surrey police. Indeed, there are missing notes and unrecorded interviews involving Jobbins and Griffin. But what the hell - this case is so full of holes, let's not be picky.

What we do know is that two white men who murdered Peter Hurburgh are at large and that their Lordships have chosen to cloud this fact. The judiciary still appears to be impressed by the evidence of Duncan, despite the fact that his fee was agreed before he'd even signed a statement. Irregular, but a good read none the less, apparently.

There is other evidence in the case. For example, Johnson is supposed to have confessed to a fellow prisoner while on remand, in the way that suspects seem to do in cases where there is not much other evidence against them. It is partly because of old lags enjoying favours from prison officers that the murderer of Carl Bridgewater is at large, four other men having been wrongly convicted.

These remand-wing confessions are as plausible as a villain capturing a sleuth, tying him up, then explaining how he perpetrated the crime and how he will escape, before setting the timer on the shark tank lid. But they seem to stand up in court.

I don't want to make light of the fact that Randolph Johnson is a convicted rapist. One might well be glad that he has been in jail. Clearly the Mail is, because they interviewed his victim's father, with whom one should have every sympathy. The point is that this does not detract from the fact that he was wrongly convicted in the M25 case. You might say that for all we know, he was guilty in that case as well, but there is little credible evidence to support that theory and the onus is not on him to disprove it. The Mail's agenda is not supporting rape victims but changing the subject.

The court of appeal made much of testimony from Raphael Rowe's ex-girlfriend that he had been in possession of stolen jewellery after the robberies. He denies this, but, again, the point is that he was accused and convicted of murder and the case against him is in tatters. My impression from letters he has written to me and other people is that he is an intelligent and thoughtful man and not a violent one, but that is not the issue either. The real issue is that justice is colour-blind, but only at the wrong times.

Finally freed after being jailed with two other black men for the M25 murder and robberies, Michael Davis talks of his 10 lost years in jail to Tony Thompson

Just hours after being freed after 10 years of a life sentence for a murder and armed robberies he did not commit, Michael Davis was walking down a south London road with friends when his mobile phone - a coming-out present - burst into life.

Davis stopped and stared at the flashing gadget in his palm. Then he stared at his friends. 'I'd never seen a mobile close up before, let alone held one. I had absolutely no idea what to do with it. Everyone thought it was really funny but when I went to prison, these things just didn't really exist.

'It's not just technology that's moved on. I talk to people and can't follow what they're talking about. The names of cars, the cultural references they make, they might just as well be speaking a foreign language.'

Davis said: 'When you're in prison, everything is backward, it's like being in the Stone Age. Although we hear about things, it's not part of your world so you dismiss it, you don't really pay attention. Your only concern is what you're going to do the next day, and that's usually exactly the same as whatever you did the day before.

'Now I feel like a kid at Christmas. Everything is new. Everything is exciting. That first night, I went out for a walk in the dark. It was amazing. I haven't walked in the dark for nearly 12 years. And I haven't walked anywhere without a screw looking over my shoulder. It's a good feeling.'

The events that led to Davis spending almost all his adult life behind bars began in the early hours of Friday 16 December 1988. A gang of three masked men, one armed with a gun, another with a knife, set off on what would later be called an 'orgy of violence'.

First they attacked and robbed a gay couple making love in a car in Surrey. The pair were beaten and had petrol poured over them. One, Peter Hurburgh, was so terrified that he suffered a fatal heart attack during the ordeal. Their attackers then drove 10 miles on the M25 to Oxted and broke into a house, stealing rings and stabbing a male occupant. After returning to the M25 for a further 20 miles, the trio robbed and attacked another couple. The traumatised victims had no idea of the identity of the assailants but agreed on one thing - two of the attackers were white, one was black.

At the time, Davis was a self-confessed petty criminal with convictions for cannabis possession, handling stolen goods and failing to attend court. He had drifted into crime, having left school with no qualifications, unable even to read or write. Living in a probation hostel along with Raphael Rowe following a theft charge, Davis became friendly with Randolph Johnson who suggested the two of them carry out a burglary. When the police raided the house a few days after the M25 raid, Davis assumed it was in connection with that.

'I thought they were going to be talking about handling stolen goods. When they said murder, I said I don't think so, you've got the wrong bloke, but they seemed hell bent on it, trying to convince me I was guilty. They asked me where I was at the time of the murder and I told them. They called me a liar. I said hang on, you haven't even checked yet. Go and check then tell me if you believe me.

'As far as I was concerned, that was going to be the end of it. But they came back and called me a liar, even though my alibi checked out. There were nine people, some of whom didn't even know me, who said they had seen me somehwere else at the time of the murders. They had arrested 12 people at the house, some white, some black, and put us all in the same police station. As people were getting interviewed, they'd come back and discuss what was going on. It was obvious the police were looking for two white guys and a black guy so I started to relax. But then they charged me and my world fell apart. I couldn't believe it was happening, it didn't make any sense.'

Davis assumed the charges against himself, Rowe and Johnson would be dropped, especially when he heard the forensic evidence did not match any of them. But as the weeks passed it became obvious the trial would go ahead. 'That still didn't worry me,' he says. 'I thought the judge would take one look at it all and rule there was no case to answer. It seemed obvious.'

But the police produced a man who claimed to have stolen a car used in the robbery and passed it to Rowe. He also claimed he heard Rowe and the others discussing their plans for the night of violence. The three were found guilty and it took nearly eight years before they discovered the man whose evidence had convicted them had originally been charged with the murder and become a police informer to get himself off the hook.

'We lodged an appeal straight away. I thought an appeal was about correcting errors, rectifying any mistakes that had been made. That wasn't the case. Because the evidence that two of the suspects were white had already been heard by the jury, we weren't able to use it as grounds for an appeal. The most glaring bit of evidence in our favour was no good. The only way to be free was to find new evidence.'

While in prison, Davis decided to get an education. 'Once you're in a cell, the only way you can communicate with people is by writing. I spent the first year with nothing. No books, no magazines. Just me in my cell. That was the incentive.' His studies floundered until he was found to be dyslexic. 'It had never been identified before and that was the cause of all my troubles. Once that was taken in account, I was able to learn to read and write.'

Davis now has more than a dozen literary and science qualifications. He also plays the clarinet up to grade 5 level and has become an accomplished painter. Two of his works have been commended by the Koestler Foundation.

He now hopes to work towards a career in the music business but also to find the two children, aged 12 and 17, with whom he has lost touch.

'People talk about compenstation but what I want is justice. Not just for myself but for the victims of the crime. They have been treated just as badly. The campaign goes on. The targets now are the people responsible for taking away our liberty. Only when they are punished can the case be closed.'

Nine years after conviction, three men who denied involvement in 'orgy of violence' win fresh hearing. Duncan Campbell reports

The case of three men convicted nine years ago of the so-called M25 murder has been sent back to the Court of Appeal, after a long campaign by their relatives to prove their innocence.

The decision, announced yesterday by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, comes the week after a finding by the European Commission of Human Rights that the men had not had a fair trial because the prosecution withheld key documents.

The three, Raphael Rowe, Michael Davis and Randolph Johnson, were jailed for life after being convicted of taking part in an 'orgy of violence' near the M25 in Surrey on December 15/16, 1988, in which one man was killed, another wounded and two houses were robbed.

Original reports indicated that two white men and one black man had been involved. All three convicted in February 1990 at the Old Bailey are black.

At their appeal in 1993 they learned that reward money had been paid for information leading to their conviction but not the names of the recipients which their lawyers claimed was vital to their case, since those alleged to have received payments had also been suspects.

At a hearing from which the men and their lawyers were excluded, the Appeal Court judges held that the documents were too sensitive for them to see.

Under the Public Interest Immunity certificate system, or 'gagging' orders, the men were not told the type of information in the documents, but these were believed to contain information about a deal in which reward money was paid and a promise of immunity from prosecution given in exchange for information.

Davis and Rowe made representations about their case to the Home Office in 1994 and Johnson followed in 1997. The case was passed to the CCRC when it was formed in 1997, and it asked Greater Manchester police to reinvestigate. On the commission's initiative, an application for the gagging order to be lifted was made to the Court of Appeal, which lifted the immunity on March 29 this year.

It has now emerged that a key prosecution witness, Norman Duncan, initially a suspect, received £10,300 in reward money. This was obviously not known to the jury when he gave evidence, and lawyers for the convicted men see it as a key factor in the case being returned to the Appeal Court.

At the time of the crime, Davis and Rowe were living in the same house in Sydenham, Greater London. Both had previous convictions and were well known to police but were adamant that they were not involved in the M25 case, which was marked by its brutality.

Among the victims were Peter Hurburgh and Alun Eley, who were dragged from their car, stripped and battered. Mr Hurburgh died of a heart attack after one attacker stamped on his sternum. Mr Eley was robbed of £10.

The attackers then broke into a house in Oxted, Surrey, and beat up a retired businessman, Richard Napier, and his son, Timothy, who was so violently stabbed that two arteries were severed.

They stole the Napiers' car and drove to Fetcham, where they broke into another house, bound and gagged the couple inside and stole their jewellery and credit cards.

Shortly after the attacks, Surrey police raided the house where Davis and Rowe lived and arrested them and 10 others, including Duncan and two other white men who admitted stealing one of the cars involved but denied committing the violence.

Jim Nicholl, solicitor for Rowe, said: "The concealment of the reward money paid to Duncan is quite stunning, bearing in mind that he was giving evidence. If you add that to the recent European decision, it seems to me that the prosecution case has gone." He said very strong evidence pointed to the innocence of the three convicted men.

Trevor Linn, solicitor for Johnson, said yesterday: "I am delighted at the decision. It is a triumph for the families of the men concerned."

Valerie Davis, sister of Michael Davis, said she hoped the appeal would be heard as soon as possible. "There is a catalogue of errors and inconsistencies in the case which should have been addressed in 1990."

She said her brother was very excited at what was happening and had never had any doubt that the case would be referred back for appeal. "He said to me that the truth will out. He is obviously not happy about what has happened, but they haven't broken his soul."

Two men serving life sentences for a murder and robberies 12 years ago near the M25 were denied a fair trial and appeal because vital evidence was withheld from the trial judge and the defence, the European court of human rights ruled yesterday.

Raphael Rowe, 32, and Michael Davis, 34, were jailed for life with the third member of the so-called M25 three, Randolph Johnson, in 1990 for a string of violent robberies, one of which led to the murder of a hairdresser.

The unanimous ruling by 17 judges brought immediate calls by Rowe's lawyer for his release from prison. The two were awarded £25,000 costs.

The court found that the prosecution had withheld significant evidence without telling the judge at the trial and without asking him to rule on whether the step was justified.

It was only last year that the defence learned that a key witness was a paid informer who had received a £10,300 reward and done a deal with police to avoid prosecution for involvement in the crimes himself.

The prosecution withheld the information under "public interest immunity" rules, which allow so-called sensitive material, including anything that might put a witness at risk of intimidation or assault, to be kept from the defence. Since the trial the law has changed, and relevant evidence cannot be withheld without a judge's ruling.

Before the appeal in 1993, the appeal court ruled, on the basis of submissions from the prosecution only, that the evidence should not be disclosed. The appeal was turned down.

The case was referred back to the appeal court last year by the criminal cases review commission, and a new appeal is scheduled next June.

But James Nichol, Rowe's solicitor, wrote to the crown prosecution service yesterday asking it to concede the appeal. "What the judges have said is that there was an unfair trial, an unfair appeal and it was entirely the fault of the crown."

The CPS said it would study the judgement before deciding whether to oppose an application from the men's lawyers for them to be freed on bail.

The Strasbourg judges said that if the trial judge had known of the information, he could have kept the question of disclosure under review during the trial. With the material, the defence might have been able through cross-examination seriously to undermine the credibility of key witnesses.

At the appeal, the judges had to rely on the transcripts of the original crown court case, and on the prosecution, for their understanding of the relevant facts, "and may even, to a certain extent, have unconsciously been influenced by the jury's verdict of guilty into underestimating the significance of the undisclosed evidence."

The three, from Sydenham, south London, were convicted of the murder in Warlingham, Surrey, of Peter Hurburgh, who was dragged with his homosexual lover from his car at gunpoint, tied up, beaten and doused with petrol when he refused to hand over his keys. Mr Hurburgh had a weak heart and the assault caused a fatal heart attack.

Later the same night men broke into the home of a retired businessman in Oxted and stabbed his 40-year-old son. The next attack took place in a house in Fetcham where a couple were tied up as their home was ransacked.

The initial description of the perpetrators, given to police by victims and issued to the public, was of a gang of two white men and a black man. One victim described one of the gang as being fair-haired and blue-eyed. However, the three men arrested and eventually convicted were all black.

Rowe and Davis always believed a deal had been struck with the original white suspects in the case in which they offered to provide information in return for cash and protection from prosecution.

John Wadham, director of the civil rights group Liberty, said: "The European court of human rights in Strasbourg has raised substantial questions about the fairness of the secret procedures in the criminal justice system." The men's convictions should be quashed.