The case for cops 'tampering' with witness statements in another officers name was put on a plate at Sheffield Crown court during my trial between 12th and 22nd September 1988, but the trial judge (Hunt) was too far up his own arse, to deal with it as he 'should have done'. His failure to deal with it 'then' contributed to the wide scale practice of tampering with the contents of witness statements in the Hillsboro' tragedy cover up, which involved ' blanket interference' with 116 different witness statements...
The Court of appeal got in on the act in 1994, by dismissing my appeal even though they were aware of the fact that DC Richardson was guilty of 'tampering' with the witness statement he had made for his side kick DS Higham, that he had 'edited pages contained within it, removing the contents of 'page 5', and 'inserting' two retyped pages, 5 and 6, and renumbering the original numbered pages, 6, 7, 8, and 9, as 7, 8, 9, and 10. He was allowed to do this because of his claim that both he and DS Higham had written up their pocketbook entries together in their respective notebooks before going off duty at 1am, on Monday, the 26th January 1987. So, when Colin Jackson of the CPS informed DC Richardson that there wasn't a witness statement by DS Higham in the 'Teskowski, file', on the 25th August 1985, DC Richardson made one for DS Higham...
But, Richardson and Higham did not make their notes up together as claimed, because the pocketbook inside which Richardson had relied on to make Highams witness statement had not been issued to DC Richardson until the 31st January, 1987, therefore, both Richardson and Higham had deliberately lied to the court during my trial. Additionally, when it was put to DC Richardson that he could not have made notes directly into his pocketbook before going off duty at 1am, on the 26th January, 1987, because his pocketbook containing the key information had not yet been issued to him by 'that' stage, DC Richardson changed his story by declaring that he had written his notes on pieces of foolscap paper, which he had copied into his notebook once that was issued to him four days later. When asked where those pieces of foolscap paper were with his original nots on, he said he did not know...
Armed with this new information Manchester police interviewed DS Higham and they put it to him, that DC Richardson had ' now' changed his account, he was now saying he had written up his notes on pieces of foolscap paper, and that he had not after all written his notes directly into his pocketbook. Higham refuted Richardson's claim that he had used pieces of paper to make his notes on. Higham continued to say that DC Richardson had made notes directly into his pocketbook, and that he had 'not used' pieces of foolscap paper...
By the time the court of appeal was doing 'its' part in trying to keep a lid on the corrupt practices adopted in my prosecution (1994), the families of the 96 Hillsboro' victims were only 5 years into a total of 27 years that they would have to wait before the same corrupt practices that were used to prosecute and to convict me, that had been adopted in the Hillsboro' cover up, were finally exposed publickly. In 2010 the CCRC turned down my application to send my case back to the court of appeal because they said that the judgement from my 1994 appeal had 'gone missing'. They cited the judgement as being 42 pages in length, and dated, February, 1994...
The truth is / was that although my appeal lasted one whole week in the Royal Courts of Justice, and I was represented at those proceedings by Michael Mansfield, QC, the court of appeal never issued a full judgement at all, only a provisional one (42 pages in length, dated February, 1994). This was because, Michael Mansfield, told the court that he would be considering taking the case to the house of Lords, and the bench responded by telling Mansfield QC that, although that was his right to do that, they told him that if he chose to do that, then the court would have no option but to ' implement the proviso'. As a result, the court would not be issuing a full judgement. This meant (according to what Mansfield QC told me afterwards) that without a judgement giving the courts reason for dismissing my appeal, he would be unable to take my case further to the House of Lords, because there was 'nothing' to argue with, or against. He said that adopting this tactic by the bench was only very rarely used, and on the occasions it was used, the appeal ended in its tracks there. When I asked him more about the proviso, he told me that when the court of appeal adopt this course of action, the court does not have to give its reasons for rejecting the appeal in a judgement, and that was for a number of different reasons, including, national security, the detection and prosecution of offenders in serious crime, to protect the identity of informants, etc, etc, etc...
I now know why they adopted this approach in my case in the court of appeal, it was because of the fact that my prosecution and conviction was linked to the cover up by South Yorkshire Police' handling of the Hillsboro' disaster (15th April, 1989), which involved the 'doctoring of police witness statements by other officers', so that the cops could blame the Liverpool fans for the tragedy. South Yorkshire is a hotbed of corruption, its been this way for well over three decades already, and it still prevails, despite the inquest findings earlier this year, which brought some closure of sorts to the families and friends of the 96 victims, after a 27 year long wait for the truth...
I am still waiting for justice to be done in my case, 28 years ago at Sheffield Crown court, in front of Judge Hunt and jury, South Yorkshire police, the local branch of the South Yorkshire CPS, got away with introducing doctored evidence. At those proceedings it was my defence that the cops had fabricated the evidence that was being used against me. Most of the trial was taken up arguing over the 'doctored' witness statement made by Richardson for Higham, and matters relating to pocketbook entries, when they were made, how they had been made up. The trial judge even got in on the act by telling the jury in his summing up, 'it is a matter for you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it was put to Sgt Higham that he had not made up his notes with DC Richardson that night, but that he had got some unnumbered notebook and used a lettreset to print the same serial number (44854) onto the front cover, and that he had rewritten his notes so that the contents of the added and retyped pages 5 and 6, that were introduced into the body of the original statement appeared in his notebook. You will have to decide, whether this is going into the realms of cloud cuckoo land, and you will bring your common sense to bear on it'...
As I say, this injustice has been hanging over me for the past 28 years, it is a burden that does not get any easier with the passing of time. It has embittered me, and filled me with a hatred for all things corrupt that evil men in shining uniforms, dark flowing gowns and wigs, impose on innocent victims, as though it doesn't matter...
But, 'it does matter'...
