COURTS ARE CORRUPT PLACES OF BUSINESS

[edtheball69]

I compiled this appeal after being shafted by my barrister and the CPS I hope it can show others what goes on in a crown court and trust no one especially your barrister you will see here that the CPS typed up my defence statement without my knowledge and handed it to the jury they now claim my barrister agreed strange that the agreement is missing from the court transcript because it never happend they perverted the course of justice and if you or I did that we would be arrested by now they havent even given any defence.


REGINA v. EDWARD (June 2009) Mold Crown Court
APPEAL EVIDENCE URN 60
Appeal No: 200
Edward
in
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION
by
EDWARD Appellant;
Against

CPS Respondent:
_______


Appellant: Edward
Respondent: CPS
27 October 2009

[1] In the Crown Court at Mold the appellant was convicted on a single indictment of contravening Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The charge was in the following terms:
On 6 September 2008 on the Queen Street Road, at Rhyl Tynewydd Road, A574, A5151, A5026, A55, Coed Y Cra Lane A5119, Halkyn Road, and Duke Street Flint The appellant drove a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely a Citroen diesel van none Turbo model 1.9 Litre registered number N871 BUT dangerously CONTRARY to the Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 2.
The appellant was sentenced on 26th June 2009 after extenuating probation reports on the count of Dangerous Driving and received the following sentence:-
12 months custody
2 year driving ban
Take an extended retest
£2200 costs
Crushing of the vehicle was considered excessive by his Honour Judge Phillip Hughes and rejected prosecution request.
[2] The appellant is a 49-year-old British citizen born and raised and educated in Mold who was self employed as an Aerial and satellite engineer. On 6th September 2008 he was in the company of 3 other males Steven Richardson, Carl Williams and Bradley Hughes, all agreed to work with the appellant that day on a leaflet drop in the coastal area of Prestatyn North Wales to promote his business MATRIX DIGITAL, the appellant had an exemplary driving record and had never been involved in any motoring accidents.

[3] Late in the afternoon 6th September 2008 the appellant decided to visit a cheque cashing centre in Rhyl to attempt to cash a £4000 cheque paid to him by the purchaser of his catering trailer who was a Mr A Mitchell.
The appellant visited Cash Converters and enquired about the fees to cash the cheque but left after being told they could only accept Ltd company cheques his own Cheshire building society required 10 days to cash the same cheque.
During his enquiries he noticed a suspicious olive skinned looking male loitering around the cheque cashing area at the rear of the shop listening to the appellant’s requests.
Later the appellant returned to the van with Bradley Hughes his 10 year old son and noticed the 2 rear passengers Steven Richardson (nephew) and Carl Williams were already in the rear of the van unknown to the appellant the two rear passengers had apparently stolen two small boxes containing televisions however the police never recovered from the appellants van the alleged televisions.
In the front of the van was the appellant and Bradley Hughes, upon driving away the van was approached and then 3 males directed the appellant to the opposite kerb the appellant immediately noticed the same olive skinned looking male from the shop again acting suspicious looking nervously up and down the road, whilst keeping an eye on that olive skinned male the appellant heard another male asked to search the van that male had a baseball cap the appellant had a brother in the police force (Sgt Graham Hughes) and had never seen his brother or any of his brothers colleges wear a blue and white checked baseball cap and in evidence PC Ivan Nattrass stated he was a community support officer and admitted that the officer hadn’t at any time shown any identification or a warrant card or explained to the appellant any identities of the men, the appellant assumed the officer was dressed as a security guard the appellant showed them a cheque and stated he hadn’t cashed the cheque and had no money on him believing they were after his cashed cheque which had not in fact been cashed.
The appellant believed he had been followed for cashing his cheque which he hadn’t achieved; the appellant was frightened and drove away with the view to double back towards the police station to report the incident.
PC Nattrass stated the appellant sped off upon hearing the sirens of the police vehicle approaching from behind however the driver of that police vehicle behind was PC 1718 Leslie Jones and he stated in evidence he put on the siren after the appellants van drove away and not before. The driver PC 1718 Leslie Jones said that the traffic lights were on red however officer PC 1718 Leslie Jones later accepted the traffic lights were staggered at that T junction the CCTV video exhibit MS/1 showed the traffic to the right side of the appellant were all stationary and no traffic in motion from the right meaning they were at a red light giving way to traffic from the appellants direction the appellants van had in fact travelled through a green light the DVD showed a vehicle at the side of the appellants van that also drove out into the same traffic along east parade and that vehicle turned left.

[4] The prosecution relied on the evidence of PC 696 Geraint Roberts as a witness to narrate the DVD of the helicopter footage as the audio was muted during trial because this officer admitted being the observer and camera operator but during a meeting and screening (that appellant was unaware of until advice on appeal) of the GR2 DVD with Gareth Preston (CPS) and Charlotte Atherton (defence counsel) on the 1st June 2009 it is said they all agreed not to allow the judge or jury to hear the audio commentary as the voices of the pursuing police officers who were extremely confused about the drivers identity. PC 696 Roberts stated the voice of the helicopter observer was not his and must have belonged to an officer that hadn’t made a statement, that detail forms part of the appeal based on new evidence and will be outlined later to show 696 Roberts was in fact the only observer and named as the officer that directed ground officers to the flat were the alleged driver went, the helicopter observer is heard to say on the exhibit GR2 DVD at :-
17:04:00 “W1 (whiskey 1) to any officer on the ground, block of flats”
17:04:04 PS Barnard “Yeah go on clear W1”
17:04:05.Observer “If you go to the car park seaward side of the estuary flats for me err by the red pickup Ill guide you from there where the drivers gone”.
17:04:13 PC 1328 Steven Parkes-Smith “I believe we’ve got the driver here the one that’s down on his knees unless you can confirm otherwise?
PC 696 Roberts also gave more erroneous evidence that speeds of the vehicle were in excess of the national speed limits throughout exceeding every limit, however when asked where he had observed the Miles Per Hour in the helicopter he was now reliant on (e.g. viewed a speedometer), he stated in evidence he remembered looking over at the helicopters air speed indicator and calculated what the MPH would have been if the 2 vehicles were travelling at the exact same speeds ( pilot observed knots), but while quoting all the speeds PC 696 Geraint Roberts had never made notes and never produced his notes despite the appellants requests to counsel, PC 696 Geraint Roberts also stated in his statement the exact same order of decamp that matched perfect the appellants defence this however was not picked up on by counsel or his Honour Judge Phillip Hughes during summing up. The prosecution case that the appellant had driven dangerous at excessive speeds also relied on the evidence of PC 1486 Malcolm Roberts, who was a passenger in the armed Mercedes Vito van This officer also gave evidence of excessive speeds throughout the chase in evidence this officer stated he saw a “heavyset” male, it was said by PC 1486 Malcolm Roberts the driver was seen for one or two seconds (fleeting glimpse) but accepted he omitted to include that description in evidence in his statement at the point he saw the driver. Carl Williams was described in the same statement as a bespectacled adult, the officer wrote in his statement “Having appraised the force control room of the situation” see annex (20), however the officer is not heard on the DVD to give the control room any appraisal as to a description of the driver or mention the same description that he was later to rely on at trial “heavyset”.

[5] The Mercedes Vito van was driven by PC 1540 Ian D Smith He gave a description of a male that decamped as also heavyset in his statement however this officer also gave evidence of excessive speeds throughout the chase in evidence this officer stated “I could see there were two persons in the front seats of the van as they approached both gesticulating at us” annex (23) the officer at this point gave no description of the male driving and also accepted he omitted to include that evidence in his statement but remembered that fact 9 months later like his passenger had at the trial. Officer PC 1540 Smith described Carl Williams as “another adult male” annex (25) during decamp. The fact the armed police officers van had front and rear mounted cameras and a black box to record impacts and speeds but was not used as evidence was not pursued by defence counsel even when that matter was raised by the appellant after being bailed longer to allow for this very evidence to be produced by PC 1718 Leslie Jones along with the video evidence from both T5 Volvo police pursuit vehicles seen at Duke Street Flint numbered 1 and 2 see annex (F photographs) the videos from within the 3 police vehicles were never requested by counsel or produced by the prosecution.


[6] On advice of appeal number 35 annex (8) defence counsel states of PC 2168 David Jones that he is heard to say “we believe we’ve got the driver on his knees unless you can say otherwise” The appellant protested that he was never on his knees as noted by officers in evidence at trial who stated the appellant was lying face down a “dead weight” see Summing up at page 14 row G also defence counsel has been asked repeatedly since advice on appeal to comment on were this evidence had came from or the quote, clearly officer PC 2168 David Jones hadn’t attended court having been dismissed from the police force and subsequently joining the NHS in Wrexham as a paramedic these facts were made available through the Professional Standards Dept after the appellant made a complaint to the IPCC about the appellants head injuries sustained as a result of PC 2168 David Jones aggressive arrest see annex (26). Counsel refuses to clarify how she came about her theory that it was the voice of PC 2168 David Jones, as clearly it was never mentioned in any documents or at trial or to the appellant and is now part of a bar standards board complaint against counsel, therefore counsel refuses to give advice on appeal based on new evidence as it has been stated by exchange chambers Rowena Goode to be a conflict of interest.

[7] It is also maintained that the evidence was not sufficient to entitle the jury to convict the appellant of dangerous driving and that the trial judge misdirected the jury as to the test for dangerous driving at excessive speeds or as to its application to the evidence in the case or lack of it. His Honour judge Phillip Hughes says during summing up at page 5 row E “to readily conclude that someone who drivers at excessive speeds or drives through a red light to be driving dangerously”. It is maintained that the trial judge erred in directions to the jury that, for excessive speed to be the factor the jury should have been directed towards the times on the DVD’s and the calculation of the distance travelled 22.5 miles for a period of 30 minutes travelled which gives an average speed of 45 MPH according to the prosecutions own evidence, (start and finish times of chase on DVD’s suppressed from jury) however the legal speed on that journey by a competent and safe driver would be at an average speed of 45 MPH the appellants van therefore travelled at no greater speed than the national speed limit imposed for those roads along that route most of which constituted 60 mph limit the speeds given in evidence by prosecution witnesses were mostly 50, 60, 75, 85 miles per hour however the jury were suppressed from seeing the times on the DVD.

[8] It can now be shown the evidence given by the police officers relating to excessive speeds was grossly over exaggerated and fallacious.
The learned judge commented during the early course of the trial on the fact that the times on the Plasma screen in front of the jury that the leaned judge and jury were viewing did not show the times (see advice on appeal number 31 annex (7) defence counsel was stating during evidence, times from the bottom corner, the appellant told counsel this was due to the fact the TV screen was zoomed in, however the screen above the jurors heads that both counsel and prosecution were viewing showed the true screen aspect ratio with the times of DVD in the corner and the helicopter watermarks, however the learned judge allowed the partial viewing of the video to continue stating he believed it would not be practical for them to look up above their heads behind themselves to view the full footage, much of the footage therefore on the plasma screen the judge and jury viewed was out of screen and incomplete for the jury throughout see advice on appeal number 33 annex (7) therefore they couldn’t calculate the times to the bottom right of the screen with the distance of 22.5 miles (distance travelled presented by the prosecution) so could not have realised the actual true speeds of the appellants vehicle that was in fact very much slower than the prosecution witnesses were stating on oath, counsel refused to address this issue on behalf of the appellant stating it may prejudice the case if the officers evidence is discredited to such a huge degree, counsel also gave her opinion see number 33 annex (7) the appellant is of the view that the times were crucial and now show the evidence of excess speed to be wrong in principle and to allow only part of the DVD to be viewed in a zoomed in mode along with muted audio was by design to greatly assist the prosecution case with, no audio and incomplete/partial video evidence.
The prosecution was allowed to suppress all of the audio evidence without any knowledge or intervention by the leaned judge and most of the visual footage was withheld from the jury without any objections from counsel or his honour judge Phillip Hughes.
There was therefore suppression of the evidence leading to procedural irregularity in the playing of the DVD. In relation to the DVD footage and its inability to “pause” coupled with the fact the audio was withheld from the judge and jury and part of the visual aspect removed from the judge and jury also the lack of objection from counsel to challenge the substantial breaches of the appellants rights, Section 78 PACE provides a discretion for the court to exclude evidence which would otherwise be admissible against a defendant on the basis it would be unfair to adduce it see <Archbold 15-452 >.The general nature of the discretion was set out by Lord Lane C.J. in the case of Regina v- Quinn Crim L.R. 581 as being the function of the judge is therefore to protect the fairness of the proceedings, and normally proceedings are fair if .. all relevant evidence is heard or seen which either side wishes to place before [the court], but proceedings may become unfair if, for example, one side is allowed to adduce relevant evidence which, for one reason or another, the other side cannot properly challenge or meet. The lack of pause facility and the removal of times on the screen by zooming in, posed an unfair disadvantage to the defence.
The trial judge could have excluded the tainted evidence under section 78 PACE given all the above factors however failed in principle to see the significance of how tainted the DVD evidence had become during the course of the proceedings and so erred.

[9] During the course of the hearing of this appeal you honour will have the opportunity of listening to the DVD recording of the commentary the judge and jury did not hear at the original trial due to counsel and prosecution not allowing the judge the discretion to decide if the audio was hearsay in law or not, or if it would allow for a fair trial or not. Counsel who represented the appellant stating “it did not assist the defence case”, this being the only reason stated to the appellant at the time of trial. It is clear from that recording that, having referred to the test of mistaken identity and to evidence in the trial. There was total confusion as to the driver’s identity. From this it is clear that the judge did not invite the jury to consider any alternative males who were wearing a white top in fact the male followed by the camera operator PC 696 Geraint Roberts was wearing a white top Carl Williams was also wearing a white top it is clear the appellant was not followed wearing his black top and ignored by the armed officers that say they seen him driving in Rhyl, it may well be the camera operator had in fact been given a description that the driver was wearing a white top and that was the reason Bradley Hughes 3rd male out of the van and 2nd male out of the front passenger door was followed because he exited from the front as confirmed in the statement of camera operator PC 696 Geraint Roberts see annex (27) Bradley Hughes was wearing white as was Carl Williams who had jumped into the rear at decamp (Carl Williams) and exited the rear because he would have to wait for the other two males to exit the front passenger door (Steven Richardson and Bradley Hughes) with the appellant 4th out of the van, in fact the judge narrowed it down during summing up saying at page 9 row F to “discount the 10 year old boy as the driver” what the learned judge did not know was that the confused evidence was suppressed from the hearing that the police thought he (Bradley Hughes) was in fact the driver but this evidence was hidden from judge and jury, the only similarity to Carl Williams and Bradley Hughes was they both had white tops on see annex (G photographs) yet at the same time there was no similarity between the appellant and Bradley Hughes who were both mistaken to be the drivers at the exact same time by police officers, Bradley Hughes was wearing white the appellant was wearing black they were both of different physical builds.


[10] The appellant acted during a complaint on behalf of Ms Sian Worrall, who was the occupant of the flat that is shown at the end of the DVD were by PS 1759 Bernard is seen to kick the door panel in at 17:06:50, The IPCC were contacted and an investigation by Professional Standards Dept (PSD) could not start due to subjudice and was not concluded until 12th August 2009 complaint number S12/324/08 see annex (10), in that investigation the investigating officer PS Robert Evans states in explanation provided by PS 1759 Barnard at number 23 of the report annex (15) “He (PS Bernard) was then directed by the HELICOPTER OBSERVER to the rear of a flat in Sydney Walk where one of the suspects had been seen to enter a short time previous. Entry was forced under section 17 PACE 1984 in order to make arrest on suspicion of theft. PS Bernard spoke to Ms Worrall and Bradley and ascertained there was no one else in the premises”.
At number 37 annex (17) of the investigating officers report it states “Police constable 696 Roberts was the OBSERVER for the North Wales Police helicopter during the police pursuit and provided the evidence in pin pointing which flat Bradley Hughes had entered”. The following is heard on DVD GR2 17:04:05.OBSERVER “If you go to the car park seaward side of the estuary flats for me err by the red pickup I’ll guide you from there where the drivers gone”.
Attention is brought at this point to the statement of PC 696 Geraint Roberts dated 06/09/2008 see annex (27) written hours after the “Chase”, In it he states “At approximately 16:35 hrs on the afternoon of Saturday 6th September 2008 I was on duty in uniform in my capacity as an OBSERVER, when as a result of information received, the aircraft was deployed to a report of a vehicle pursuit eastbound along Dyserth Road, from Rhyl towards Prestatyn. The aircraft took off with me as the rear seat OBSERVER and CAMERA OPERATOR. Constable 571 Glyn Roberts as front seat tactical commander, both sat on the left and the pilot Capt Paul Bayley front right”
This new evidence raises questions about PC 696 Geraint Roberts omissions and evidence at trial see number 37 annex (8) within Advice on Appeal against conviction, counsel for defence states “PC Geraint Roberts was the controller of the camera inside the helicopter; He was called to give evidence. However, prior to giving his evidence he was asked by agreement between the prosecutor and defence, whether the voice that could be heard commentating on the helicopter audio was his own. He told counsel that the voice was not his own and it related to a different officer that had not been asked to give a statement or evidence”. The DVD audio showed confusion amongst the police as to the identity and description of the driver and it clearly benefited the prosecution to exclude such confusing evidence from the judge and jury in any event this new evidence shows PC 696 Geraint Roberts was not being transparent about his involvement with another matter of mistaken identity.
Clearly PC 696 Geraint Roberts admits he was the OBSERVER from his own written statement 06/09/2008 see annex (27) he admits operating the camera, PS Bernard admits speaking to the helicopter OBSERVER and now also identifies that person as PC 696 Geraint Roberts and this is heard on the GR2 DVD, PC 696 Roberts memory at trial was excellent in remembering every detail and he was able to convert helicopter air speed knots into miles per hour by memory but couldn’t recognise the voice recorded on the camera he operated that day, the voice within the helicopter that was totally confused over the identity of the driver.
The confused person was clearly the OBSERVER and by his own admission in his statement annex (27) and the new evidence that has been obtained from the (PSD) report obtained from PS Bernard annex (17) shows the only OBSERVER in the helicopter sitting with a tactical commander and pilot was in fact PC 696 Geraint Roberts.


[11] On the grounds for appeal of mistaken identity. Even where the appellant has admitted being present at the scene of the offence, there will still be occasions where a judge should give such a direction, as required by the guidelines (R v Thornton 1995). Longer exposure significantly boosts accuracy rates where the offender is present however police evidence stated the following the two armed response officers( PC 1486 Malcolm Roberts and PC 1540 Ian Smith) were in a moving vehicle in poor weather conditions, raining on a bend as they were travelling in opposite directions at great speed and they viewed the driver for 1 or 2 seconds (fleeting glimpse). The 2 armed response officers (PC Malcolm Roberts and PC Ian Smith) couldn’t describe Hair colour or distinguishing features such as glasses or hair/bald head, ethnic origin or cloths. No description of the driver was given to commanders or control room even though the both officers say they saw the driver on the bend. They later based their description on a male they saw decamp from the van with a vehicle blocking their view whilst their police vehicle was on the wrong side of the road of the appellants van to see the doors being exited see annex (F photographs).
Identification procedures were negated at the police station and no positive identification was ever established through PACE. The danger was that the witnesses would base their subsequent evidence upon what appears on the DVD, rather than what they actually saw at the time of the event this is clear from the angle of ( PC 1486 Malcolm Roberts and PC 1540 Ian Smith) Vito van see annex (F photograph) vehicle number 3. The 2 armed response officers had a fleeting glimpse of the driver seated in a van with only shoulders and chest possibly showing the drivers belly would have been impossible to see and they said he was “heavyset” the same 2 officers said Carl Williams appeared normal or bespectacled this description given after having seen a rear view of Carl Williams running away from them and the decamp van for 2 seconds with a vehicle obstructing the officers view to the front of them (vehicle 2 obstructing), they never had a frontal view of the decamp and so could only have gave observations that day based from another source which in this case was the DVD footage, in their account of events this evidence was never challenged by counsel due to the “pause” facility function conveniently not being available at trial.
PACE requires that after any identification procedure, each witness shall be asked if they have seen any broadcast or published films or photographs, or any description of suspects relating to the offence and their reply shall be recorded unfortunately, this did not occur and thus the value of their identification was not put into true perspective, Police officers were being shown the DVD prior to trial as confirmed by counsel and CPS (Gareth Preston) and mentioned in advice on appeal by Ms Atherton see number 37 annex (8).
A full Turnbull direction on fleeting encounters should have been directed to the jury but in summing up was to be labelled as a reminder and not a direction. The jury should have been made aware of the risk of mistaken identification based on such weak evidence with no supporting evidence, a heavyset male was described at decamp but not on the first witness sighting at Rhyl behind the wheel the judge attempted to cover A.D.VO.K.A.T.E but not as a direction, he only reminded the jury of the identification evidence, the appellant claimed during trial Carl Williams didn’t facially look like the appellant and they were like chalk and cheese in the following areas, the appellant had hair no glasses and black coat Williams was bald with glasses and white bulky fleeced top however they were the same height at exactly 6 foot 1 and the same build across the shoulders with a 42 inch chest and of the same ethnic background the only difference the appellant stated was the appellant had a bit of a beer belly none of these features were noted by any witnesses when their identification/recognition of the suspect was made by the police officers as a result of previous dealings with that person (on the bend in Rhyl at high speed).
Much will depend on the circumstances of the recognition: if it is followed by an immediate arrest, which it wasn’t, or there is no break in the chain from observation to arrest clearly there was, if the identifying officer does not immediately arrest the suspect which was evident in this case, formal identification procedures should have been followed to avoid the risk of the officer's recognition evidence being ruled inadmissible these identification procedures were negated and not directed to the jury by the judge or by counsel.
The trial judge could have excluded tainted evidence under section 78 PACE.
The procedures set out in Code D are designed to ensure fairness in identification procedures and to minimise the risk of fallacious identifications. The more significant the breach of the Code the more questionable will be the fairness of the procedures and the greater the risk of fallacious identification.


[12] What then of the situation in which neither of the parties has mentioned to the jury that if the jury believed the appellant was guilty of initially driving and drove through a red light as described by PC 1718 Leslie Jones but later believed that the appellants passenger Carl Williams continues the journey after pushing the appellant out of his seat and then Carl Williams driving all the way to Flint, the jury may therefore conclude in their eyes that the appellant was guilty of dangerous driving for only the first 60 seconds of the episode which in fact may not constitute dangerous driving in law but would be failure to stop at a red light offence, and Carl Williams having drove dangerously for the remainder of the journey.
The learned judge however did not make clear to the jury during summing up that the appellant had to be guilty of the whole 2 episodes of driving not just the first episode as the defence case was based on.
The leaned judge during summing up misdirected the jury on the following point he said at page 5 row E “You may readily conclude that a motorist who ignores the RED LIGHT who drives at excessive speed for the conditions and who overtakes into the paths of oncoming vehicles so they have to take evasive action is driving dangerously” this direction meant the admission of the appellant being the driver initially at Queens Street was sufficient to return a guilty verdict as directed by the learned judge to conclude so.
It was in fact 2 episodes of driving the first being the appellant then with Carl Williams taking control moments later in Rhyl.
That was the major issue un adopted by his honour judge Phillip Hughes and also the prosecution Gareth Preston so therefore was the appellant convicted of driving through the red light in Rhyl as directed by the learned judge if so that was not the indictment and the ambiguity on direction raises concern.

[13] Advance information and disclosure regarding a book of photographs submitted to the jury at the end of trial (which were not part of the defence bundle or disclosed to the appellant prior to trial) the 3 books were disclosed during the end of cross examination of the appellant who contested the integrity of the books and their contents the appellant had no prior knowledge of them.
Also that no notice of additional evidence was served on the appellant and it should also be noted that after cross examination of the appellant the prosecutor Gareth Preston had his legal assistant draft and type up sheets of paper which were formal admissions he passed one to defence counsel, one to his honour judge Philip Hughes and some to the jury members after counsel had requested they be handed out see page 22 row D within Summing up, the appellant did not receive one and the admissions were of the 3 books of photographs handed out at the end of the trial showing a driving seat in a van that was placed in such a position that it would be impossible to squeeze behind, it is these photographs that the appellant had not agreed with or made admissions about however the direction of the judge even without the appellants signature were it was typed sign was void of the appellants name or signature see summing up page 21 row E, The admissions handed to the judge and jury typed up by the prosecution were void of a signature and were not a photocopy of any original document therefore the judge erred in allowing those documents to be deliberated upon page 21 row F and saying “they are just as much evidence in the case as if a witness had come and given evidence on oath”.
Upon exiting court at 15:05 when his honour judge Phillip Hughes bailed the appellant to the precincts of the court (see summing up page 22 row E) Patricia Pendleton (acting as a solicitor with no legal qualifications) asked the defendant to sign a hand written document relating to formal admissions, the appellant refused to sign stating he did not agree with the photographs being entered as evidence or the manner in which they had been submitted and to ask for admissions after the jury had already seen the photographs and retired was in the appellants eyes malpractice, it was not clear when they were obtained and the arrangements of the seats were not reminiscent of the position of the seats on the day of the offence counsel retorted with "you had already put that point eloquently across to the jury" Ms Atherton made no objections to the late submission of the 3 books of photographs or exclusion of audio evidence from the DVD zoomed footage or identification evidence the admissions the jury retired with were therefore unsigned and in dispute.
During prosecution examination Gareth Preston (CPS) passed the book containing 12 to 18 photos to the appellant and asked the appellant to count 6 pages from the rear of the book to one page the prosecution wanted to examine him on however moments later the jury were allowed to retire for deliberations with the entire book of photographs at their disposal this was a procedural irregularity as it was unknown what else was within the pages of the book and clearly the appellant hadn’t been asked to remark on the full contents of the remaining photographs so wouldn’t know the whole contents.
The decision to withhold this information (photographs) and not notify the defence in writing prior via notice of additional evidence, was not argued by defence counsel the file was not endorsed with any reasons (Archbold 12-116) the prosecution should also have provided to the defence all evidence upon which the prosecution proposed to rely on in trial long before final cross examination not moments prior to deliberations by the jury.
.
[14] There are various means of identifying the accused that the police officers who say they saw the driver in Rhyl could have used, viz. visual identification; identification in court; identification out of court; video identification; the use of photographs; the use of photofits and sketches; and other forms of identification no means were adapted to identify the appellant.
Evidence of visual identification must be supported by strong evidence which need not be corroborative evidence stricto sensu but must be such as to make the jury sure that there has not been a mistaken identification.
In R v Quinn the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction because of breaches of Code D and the failure of the trial judge to make specific reference to the breaches in his summing-up to the jury. Lord Taylor CJ said:
“We wish to emphasise that where a detailed regime is laid down in a statutory Code, it is not for police either at any one or more police stations to substitute their own procedure and their own rules for that which is laid down. We hope that either they will come into line immediately, or if it is thought necessary to change the rules that will be done in the appropriate manner. But as long as there is a statutory Code, it is there to be observed not to be varied at will.” The principle is neatly illustrated by R v Smith and Doe where the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge should have withdrawn the case where one of the identifying witnesses was confused and unclear the confused witnesses were withheld from the judge this was the helicopter observer PC 696 Geraint Roberts.
The fair trial right under Article 6 of the Convention must be assessed on all the facts and the whole history of the proceedings. True, the judge did not exercise his discretion to exclude the evidence
under section 78 of PACE. The evidence was floored and tainted and had been wrongly admitted.

[15] The appellant puts forward new evidence that will show the speeds given by witnesses at trial were a fallacy the evidence was presented to the jury by three Seasoned and highly experienced police officers and was Non Sequitur to the facts. What was withheld from the jury in relation to the DVDs were the times in the bottom right corner of the DVDs footage that were unable to be viewed by the judge and jury which his Honour judge Phillip Hughes took issue with during the early stages of trial, the suppression of these timelines from the judge and jury served to assist the prosecution, see advice on appeal at number 33/34 annex (7), three Seasoned and highly experienced police officers labored the allegation of excessive dangerous speeds of travelling through the 30 MPH zones in excess of 45 MPH and travelling through the 40MPH zones at 55 MPH and travelling through the 60 MPH zones in excess of 70 to 85 MPH as stated in evidence and presented within the statements by PC 696 Geraint Roberts see annex (27/28), and PC 1468 Malcolm Roberts see annex (20/21/22) also PC 1540 Ian Smith see annex (23/24/25), we now look at that evidence with the introduction of the following new evidence, we know the jury were suppressed from seeing the times on the DVDs on screen in court so the jury could not calculate or have known what the overall time was for the journey, as this was hidden from them see advice on appeal 33/34 annex (7) and was not able to be viewed on the screen in front of the jury and no times were noted in deliberations or summing up and therefore no directions or warnings given, what the jury was told was that the journey was a 22.5 mile high speed pursuit. On viewing the times from the start on the (DVD exhibit MS/1 town CCTV) from Queens Street Rhyl at 14:32 to the stop (decamp) in Duke Street Flint at 17:02 (DVD exhibit GR2) the none stop journey as described by PC1718 Leslie Jones in evidence as being none stop even between the zones not covered by either DVDs the chase was a 30 minute journey a simple mathematical calculation shows that the average speed therefore throughout that route was 45 MPH what was also suppressed from the jury was that the legal speed along that route in the maps supplied by the prosecution was as follows
@ 30 MPH for 6.5 miles takes 13 minutes
@ 40 MPH for 2.0 miles takes 3 minutes
@ 50 MPH for 0.0 miles
@ 60 MPH for 12.6 miles takes 12 minutes and 36 seconds
@ 70 MPH for 1.4 miles takes 1 minute and 20 seconds
The journey would take a safe competent driver maintaining the speed zone limits with no excess speed exactly 29 minutes and 56 seconds.
The appellants van covered that same route in approximately 30 minutes allegedly at high speeds in excess of 15 to 20 MPH at each of the zones according to the three seasoned officers, The AA route finder supports the appellants new evidence as fact, this new evidence supports the appellants concerns over the integrity of the fallacious evidence given by the three Seasoned and highly experienced police officers as grossly over exaggerated or deceitful.


[16] Advice on appeal against conviction was negative by design to bias the appeal and prevent the appellant fair access to the appeal process, thus highlighting her acts and omissions, I wish to cover the comments of defence counsel also bring facts to the attention of the appeal Judge that since receiving negative advice on appeal I have raised my concerns of inaccuracies contained within the advice also raised new evidence with counsel both through the acting solicitor (Edward Hughes solicitors) and direct through exchange chambers via Mr Ronald Parr who had a blanket authority to act on behalf of the appellant whilst in prison Mr Parr (friend to the appellant) emailed chambers about his concerns and was directed by Ms Rowena Goode (barrister at law speaking on behalf of Ms Atherton) to take the matter up with the bar standards board, however since July 2009 the appellant has not received any written response directly from the acting solicitor or counsel and therefore has had to compile this appeal without the aid of counsel Charlotte Atherton, the initial defence counsel representing the appellant at the trial.
The appellant was originally to be represented by Mr Nick Walker a highly competent and respected member of chambers and within the circuit and also the qualified solicitor and senior partner of the firm Edward Hughes criminal solicitors Mr Roger Thomas see annex (29/30) the appellant however was represented at trial by Ms Atherton for counsel and Patricia Pendleton a (police station rep) it is now clear when comparing the CV of both exchange chambers counsel that Mr Walker has had a distinguished career whilst on the other hand Ms Atherton notably has less experience in defence cases and has been 2nd junior for the majority of her professional career with no experience of driving convictions which would explain the number of systematic acts and omissions and lack of objections in this case.
The appellant believed throughout the course of the trial that Ms Atherton was learning the ropes at the expense of the appellant’s liberty, however had initially been led to believe she had much experience and that Patricia Pendleton was a qualified solicitor the appellant noted the leaned judge commenting on the lack of mitigation by counsel at time of sentence.
As a direct lack of any response from counsel the appellant finds himself having to bring this appeal to the appeal courts attention himself and can only apologise for its structure and layout if it does not meet the appeal courts criteria however the appellant remains confidant of innocence the late presentation is a result of the appellant being in prison along with allowing counsel further time to reply and receiving the police (PSD) report on 12th August 2009 and a response to requests from the original Judge having now received a reply from the Crown Court dated 26/10/09 see annex (31).
Starting with item at number 11 of advice on appeal see annex (2a) states the third male out exited from the rear however the new photographs and new paused images at annex (A,B,C,G) show this to be incorrect he exited from the front which is confirmed in evidence of the appellant also the statement of PC696 Geraint Roberts see annex (27) all the witnesses stated the 3rd male exited from the rear door, this new evidence has been put to the defence counsel Ms Atherton who continues to offer no comment directly with the appellant over the allegations that her advice on appeal contains a number of errors shown to exist in the light of new evidence obtained by the appellant.

[17] Counsel raised the issue of YouTube in advice on appeal and at number 23 annex (5) on advice of appeal counsel mentions the defendant wanted to introduce the footage of YouTube that counsel stated “would not assist the defence case” however due to the inability of the exhibit GR2 DVD being void of any “pause” facility the appellant felt the frames he wanted to rely on could only be seen from YouTube as that footage allowed the “chase” to be “paused” or freeze frame counsel stated at number 23 annex (5) that she noted dark clothing in a “frame” but was unable to explain to the appellant how she was able to use the exhibit GR2 DVD to see a “frame” when it lacked the ability to “pause” or freeze a frame the appellant was unable to obtain the time line within the GR2 DVD on the exhibit GR2 DVD that Ms Atherton claims shows that “frame” and raised the issue how she can still rely on that in advice on appeal, it is of grave concern to the appellant that counsel could not answer the question, how she could see a single frame on the exhibit GR2 DVD when the DVD lacked the function to pause or have a frame frozen likewise Ms Atherton was also unable to explain why she stated on advice at number 35 annex (8) the following, “PC David Jones who arrested the defendant is heard to reply” and I quote “we believe we’ve got the driver here on his knees unless you can say otherwise” the appellant raised concerns that this quote was not in any statement and never omitted as evidence by that officer to be the voice of PC David Jones and it was never mentioned at trial, so Ms Atherton took it upon herself to attach that officers name in her advice on appeal to that quote in order to create a misleading impression in advice on appeal this was put to Ms Atherton and has not been refuted.
Number 25 annex (5) of advice on appeal covers the appellants concerns that the jury directions about YouTube may well have prejudiced his case, counsel states at number 25 annex (5) “jurors are told that they should report any irregularities if they arise during the course of the trial”. The appellant was concerned that irregularities could have arisen long before the trial because the YouTube footage had been in the public domain since 18th October 2008 and was uploaded to Facebook, MySpace, Bebo and community websites, the links are on YouTube and the footage was a huge talking point within the small community the pubs and schools in the Mold area part one of the DVD on YouTube alone had 3320 hits on the YouTube website. and the jury members were all from the local area of Mold the appellant recognised most of the jury and according to the 2001 UK census, Mold has a population of 9,568 which is a low population medieval market town the appellant was raised and educated in Mold from birth as were his parents and his grandparents the jurors were not known to the appellant personally, the appellant was concerned that by not asking if the jury were aware of the YouTube footage being available within the community the jury could conclude that their previous knowledge of the material raised no directions from the judge therefore there was no issue of their knowledge to its existence and as such no direction was given by the judge which meant any knowledge was of no concern to the court or the jury would have expected the judge to make comment or direction.

[18] If a jury member had seen the footage and had directed others to its existence the leaned judge by coming to the conclusion that it was best not to mention it in front of the jury which is what he concluded had inadvertently erred in principle the appellant protested with counsel that the leaned judge should have mentioned YouTube and allowed any member to be excused from the jury that had viewed it, then the judge could give direction that as the footage was clearly in the public domain and of grave concern to all parties (Police, Prosecution and defence), and could easily be googled they should not attempt to view it during the course of the trial the very existence of the footage on YouTube was of grave concern to the police and the prosecution so much so that YouTube were contacted by them and also other media (as publish in the daily post) to remove it during the course of the trial for fear of prejudicing the case see number 19 annex (4) of advice on appeal.
It has been noted by courts that jury members can and do indeed Google cases easily and as such they should be directed not to do so, the chase was from Rhyl to Flint and if anyone on the jury was to Google that title, it directs that jury member to YouTube.
Furthermore, the jury should have been instructed not to consult outside sources such as internet newspapers or television news as media reporting that could have swayed their opinion. Jurors who ignore such instructions do so then at the peril of being in contempt of court and facing fines or even prison time as a result however there was no such direction given by his Honour Judge Phillip Hughes, the appellant was and still is of the belief the judge should of commanded the situation better, and directed the jury not to seek out this footage that was hugely publicised within the local community and should have instructed the jury to report any previous irregularities to his Honour judge Phillip Hughes therefore it was a reasonable assumption by the appellant that it may well have prejudiced the trial by not mentioning to the jury any directions about YouTube or the DVD footage being available within the local community.
Clearly in the eyes of the appellant his Honour judge Phillip Hughes adapted the ad hoc approach of lets just cross our fingers and hope for the best that they (the jury) haven’t seen the footage on YouTube.
On advice of appeal the appellant raised concerns that posts made on the YouTube website refer to being made by jury members counsel stated at number 27 annex (6a) “Although these posts seem to be written with the intention of causing the reader to believe the author was a juror this is far from proved”. The appellant believes it also remains far from being disproved.
The appellant notes similar concerns are now being raised by Queens Counsel in legal journals.
See attached extract:-

[19] Googling risks trial bias, warns QC Findlay
THE impartiality of jury trials in Scotland could be hampered as an increasing number of jurors are using the internet to research cases in which they are involved, two of Scotland's top criminal lawyers have warned.
Donald Findlay, QC, claimed the Scottish Government had adopted an "ostrich approach" to the problem of jury members "googling" details of criminal trials when they are sent home overnight.
And Paul McBride, QC, warned that jurors tempted to conduct online research posed a "real danger" to the fairness of criminal trials in Scotland.

Mr Findlay, who has acted in some of the country's most notorious criminal cases, said: "I don't believe that the system does anything to combat (internet searching], but rather it has adopted an ostrich approach."
He said the fairness of the trial of William Begg for the "limbs in the loch murder" in 2001 could have been damaged by internet research. "We showed a lot of internet material available at the time, and the Crown argued that it was no different than back copies of newspapers," he said. "But my response was that… it's so much easier to type someone's name into a search engine than to trawl the archives of a library
"The law works on a fiction that jurors always do what they are told and must only decide the case on the merits of the evidence presented, but I am not convinced of that."
Mr Findlay warned that the situation was even more worrying because the information returned in an internet search was not always accurate.
"You're not getting fact but media coverage, which may or may not be fact, and that is a very dangerous situation," the QC said.
Mr McBride said that he, too, was concerned the practice was on the increase.
"It would take a fairly strong juror, especially in a high-profile trial, to resist the temptation of the internet," he warned. "They are told by judges only to listen to the evidence and not to discuss the case with anybody else. What they are not told is if you go home and Google a name, you could find out the defendant's history and the circumstances of the offence.
"They are given no warning, probably for fear of tempting them to do it. I think they should be given a specific warning about it, because we know that jurors have ignored judges' warnings," said Mr McBride. "We know that they have visited the scenes of crimes when they are not supposed to, and we know that in England there was an Ouija board taken into the jury room."
He added: "Nowadays, when every kid in the street has a mobile with access to Google, the temptation to type somebody's name in, or even that of their lawyer, is a real danger".


[20] In relation to the grounds on appeal and fresh evidence the ability to “pause the DVD was not present during the trial and it was noted that the DVD wouldn’t pause at the appellants solicitors office with acting solicitor present also at Exchange chambers with first appointed counsel Mr Nick Walker or even in conference with Charlotte Atherton and subsequently later at trial with his Honour judge Phillip Hughes, the appellant however was assured before trial by Ms Atherton that a guarantee would be obtained from the prosecution that the DVD contents had not been edited and it would be fully relied on at trial as evidence, however this guarantee was never produced by the prosecution despite much deliberation between counsel on behalf of the appellant during the months before trial, therefore the industry standard “pause” facility seemed to be void, it was unknown if the problem was a player compatibility or format problem or if the command line was not within the structure of the DVD disk IFO Files which give the player important navigational information or if these commands were removed by deliberate design.
The ability however to now “pause” the footage with the use of YouTube allows for the exploration of new evidence unable to be given during the course of the trial and subsequent summing up.
Decamp at the precise time each person is out of the van
1ST = 17.02.22 =FRONT see annex
2ND= 17.02.23 =REAR see annex
3RD= 17.02.24 =FRONT see annex
4TH= 17.02.25 =FRONT see annex
An independent witness has viewed the footage and accepts the above order to be as shown in the DVD this independent reporter is Mr Mark Daily from the BBC Panorama who is an investigative reporter.

In his statement PC 696 Geraint Roberts also agreed the exact same decamp order as above this officer had the best view from within the helicopter and was to the left of the van the males decamped from.
However PC 1486 Malcolm Roberts and PC 1540 Ian Smith were to the right hand side of the decamp van these officers also had a large police vehicle obstructing their view of the decamp see annex (F photographs).
Both PC 1486 Malcolm Roberts and PC 1540 Ian Smith could not have seen the order of those individuals decamp as the officers described in evidence on oath apart from the obstructing view of the Volvo police car 2 annex (F photographs) they were on the drivers side of the appellants van and could not physically see around the van towards the front passenger door see annex (F photographs) the officers PC1486 Malcolm Roberts and PC 1540 Ian Smith evidence was clearly based on the DVD footage not on the actual events as they happened due to the position of their vehicle being on the opposite side of the road see vehicle 3 annex (F photograph).
These officers had arrived as the third vehicle PC1486 Malcolm Roberts and PC 1540 Ian Smith. in a convoy of police vehicles at the scene, two other Volvo pursuit trained vehicles were in front of these armed officers in their Mercedes Vito van, PC 1486 Malcolm Roberts and PC 1540 Ian Smith. As annex (F photograph) shows.
The suspects decamp was complete even before the officers PC1486 Malcolm Roberts and PC 1540 Ian Smith, had manoeuvred their vehicle (number 3) from being the wrong side of the road and so the chronology shows the officers had in fact missed the decamp the only way the officers could have compiled their subsequent statements was by substituting what they saw on the helicopter DVD footage for what they were unable to see on the ground at the time of the events see new evidence annex (F photograph)
The appellant was made aware before his release from custody on 7/09/08 at the police station that PC Leslie Jones had stated to him that he was to be bailed whilst the on board videos were obtained from the Armed Police officers Mercedes Vito and also the two T5 high pursuit Volvo estate cars that were behind the appellants van in Flint however these videos were never entered as evidence by the police as the appellant believes the videos did not assist the prosecution case and would have actually shown the true speed of the appellants van to be much slower than officers stated in evidence and the Vito video of decamp would give the real view conflicting with the officers version of evidence.

[21] The officer that arrested the appellant PC 2168 David Jones did not give evidence and his statement was excluded for the trial he was an advanced police pursuit driver but was a passenger in the first Volvo chasing the appellants van along Duke Street Flint PC 2168 David Jones during the course of a IPCC complaint lodged by the appellant against this officer Professional Standards Dept (PSD) confirmed that shortly after the appellants arrest PC 2168 David Jones was dismissed from the police force and he was no longer a serving officer with North Wales police but had in fact secured employment within Wrexham NHS as a paramedic according to PSD investigating officer PS R Evans.
In his statement PC 2168 David Jones states “As I was level with the drivers door I looked up, and saw a male sitting in the driving seat with both his hands on the steering wheel, this male later provided his details as Edward Hughes 12/04/1960. “Hughes looked down towards me and was trying to push his driver’s door towards me but was prevented from doing so. I then saw Hughes quickly get out of the drivers seat and climb over towards the passenger side”.
However now that the GR2 DVD can be paused it is noted that as the police vehicle that PC 2168 David Jones is a passenger in at the point were as he states “As I was level with the drivers door” The photo see annex (E photograph) shows that the appellant is already at the passenger door the appellants arm is clearly seen at the passenger door and could not be as stated “sitting in the drivers seat trying to push the drivers door open” at 17:02:24 on the DVD annex (E photograph).
PC 2168 David Jones did not attend court stating the reason being that he was sitting his paramedic exams.
Having been dismissed from the police service prior to this case it was the appellants belief that this witness having been dismissed from the police force for reasons unknown, therefore may well have been due to his character which could have resulted in him being a hostile witness for the prosecution who may not have called him to give evidence in any event.

[22] Mr Brad Andrews, who was to appear for the appellant as an independent witness, would have pointed out that the driving past the Mecca bingo hall in Flint was conducted with a stout Bald male with glasses and a light coloured top. In regard to the final episode, of the chase by reason of his having witnessed Carl Williams behind the wheel shortly before the decamp, however counsel stated she was unable to reach Mr Andrews that day. Therefore she had not provided his evidence to the prosecution. This was also not put to the judge or jury this witness is still available to attend any hearings.

















GROUNDS OF APPEAL


The grounds of appeal are based on new evidence unseen or heard by the original judge or jury also misdirection.

[A] The new paused images of the DVD annex (F photographs) show the position of police Vito van to be placed in a position for it not to be possible to observe the order in which the suspects climb out of the front and rear doors of the appellants van the officers statements and subsequent evidence at trial were taken from what they saw on the DVD footage filmed from the left side of the appellants van and not what they saw in their vehicle number 3 in annex (F photographs) with another vehicle number 2 in the same photograph that was obstructing their view the Vito van was placed to the right hand side of the appellants van therefore they could not see the suspects during decamp, exit from any specific door. The officers van was not identified as a Mercedes Vito on the screen and its position on screen was not made available to the jury however it was impossible to view the frames as the DVD pause was disabled during the trial the photographs constitute new evidence.

[B] The new paused images allow for detail of decamp to show 3rd person out of appellants van was a male with a white top who exited the front passenger door officers PC 1486 Malcolm Roberts and PC 1540 Ian Smith in evidence said 3rd person out had exited from the rear door of the appellants van and this male was described as the driver on the helicopter audio by PC 696 Geraint Roberts that was suppressed from the jury the 3rd male out is seen exiting the front door of appellants van see annex (A,B,C or G photographs) this footage was confused by the officers and the judge and is new evidence as it is now freeze frame which was unavailable at trial.

[C] The DVD audio in now new evidence that was suppressed from the jury without the knowledge of the judge this audio now shows the police were confused as to the identity of the driver PC 696 Geraint Roberts who told counsel it was not his voice during a meeting out of court see annex (8) number 37. New evidence as stated in a police report see 37 annex (17) shows PS 1759 Bernard states it was 696 Geraint Roberts voice that offered to direct him to were the driver had gone and this is heard on the DVD audio at 17:04:05.Observer PC 696 Geraint Roberts “If you go to the car park seaward side of the estuary flats for me err by the red pickup Ill guide you from there where the drivers gone”.
This audio was suppressed from trial without the direction from the learned judge the audio undermines the prosecution case and is now new evidence.
(a) R v Smith and Doe, new evidence on the DVD not heard by the jury, the witness evidence was suppressed.

[D] Breaches of PACE in relation to identification procedures by PC 1486 Malcolm Roberts and PC 1540 Ian Smith as outlined R v Quinn and the lack of direction as to the identity of the accused by the judge not giving sufficient direction to the jury as to the lack of evidence or direction to jury R v Turnbull (1976).
On the grounds for appeal of mistaken identity, even where the appellant has admitted being present at the scene of the offence, there will still be occasions where a judge should give such a direction, as required by the guidelines (R v Thornton 1995) no such direction was given.


[E] The judge directed the jury to give the late unsigned defence admissions as much credit as if the evidence had been given on oath page 21 row E of summing up, the defence admissions were typed up by the prosecution and the defendant had not seen or signed the admissions that were typed up and subsequently handed to the defence counsel and judge also jury the appellant was unaware of the prosecution relying on the photographs or that they were presented into proceedings correctly or if the 3 books of photographs was unused material. Any photographs provided outside the committal bundle or without a written notice of additional evidence should not be included in the evidence. Only 3 books were presented during final examination of the appellant one handed to the judge one to share between the 12 jury and one to the prosecutor during cross examination the prosecution had to juggle between the court sharing the only three available books of photographs because it was not planned for the prosecution to submit them and was a procedural irregularity.


[F] His honour judge Phillip Hughes summed up stating at page 9 row E “Had the witness or either of them ever seen the man identified before, well there’s no evidence that they had”.
In fact both officers had seen the defendant prior to describing him as heavyset at the point of decamp in Flint, they stated in their statements and in evidence that they saw the driver in Cheltenham road on a bend in Rhyl but omitted in evidence they hadn’t gave any description at that point PC 1486 Malcolm Roberts and PC 1540 Ian Smith only described the defendant as heavyset at the point of the decamp, so the judge erred in the direction if either of them ever seen the man identified before in evidence the appellant was identified in Flint and as stated was seen before that identification in Rhyl by the same officers his Honour judge Phillip Hughes erred, the first sighting is covered in summing up at page 15 row A.
(a) The quality of the identification sometimes depends upon previous sightings. In R v Slater (1995) CLR 944 it was said that where this applies the Jury must examine each of the relevant previous sightings with care and that they should be so directed in accordance with Turnbull.
The time lapse of some 25 minutes since the officers say they first saw the appellant driving in Rhyl to the moment of decamp was not clear as the learned judge erred by stating the witnesses hadn’t seen the appellant prior to describing him at Flint but they had a sighting in Rhyl in their own statements and in evidence but were unable to document a description of the driver until decamp.
No particular reason was given as to how the witnesses remembered the appellant other than he was heavyset a description given from within their van when they had no view from the angle they were at in Flint see annex (F photographs).
The errors in the description were not mentioned to the jury the helicopter observer chose a 10 year old boy wearing white as the driver but the two officers could only describe the driver as a heavyset male at the point of decamp these errors are new evidence to the degree of the confusion with the identification of the driver.

[G], Summing up was woefully inadequate in regards to the Turnbull guideline used as a direction in law, which is very specific, there was a failure to give direction in an adequate guidance see summing up page 9 row A onwards.
(a) As outlined in R v Turnbull (1976) Case law suggest that the courts apply Turnbull strictly, see R v Nash (2004) and R v Weeder (1980).


(b) There are very specific cases where a Turnbull warning is required, see R v Bentley (1994) on recognition cases, R v Thornton (1995) when accused admits being at the scene, R v Moore (2004), even if the witness is a police officer,
His honour judge Phillip Hughes failed to direct the jury, during summing up as stated on page 2 row F his honour judge Phillip Hughes states “When I give you directions about the law you have to apply those faithfully to the case but when I come to remind you of some of the evidence then in a way I’m trespassing on your territory”.
In relation to the identification issue page 9 row A the judge then gave the jury a plethora of reminders and not a single direction, he failed to define what should be clear boundaries between reminder of evidence and directions in law, the summing up left an ambiguity in that the reminders were framed as directions when in fact there was no formal direction as required in the strictest terms of R v Turnbull (1976), on page 9 row A, the judge appears to adopt A.D.V.O.K.A.T.E but only as a reminder and never gave it as a direction in law the judge stated to the jury it was in a way “trespassing on their territory” and he merely asked the jury to ask these kinds of questions the judge never asked the jury to apply them as a direction what he said was, “Consider all the evidence you’ve heard about the identification and ask these kinds of questions. Bear in mind any weakness in the identification evidence that I will remind you of as I go through”. The judge continues to go through and remind the jury however this should have been a direction in law and not as the judge stated “a reminder, therefore the judge erred in direction of law and failed to apply the sense and spirit of the guidance of Turnbull as a direction in law, it was stated by the judge to be a “reminder of the evidence”.
The jury could conclude that as the judge was reminding the jury of the following evidence, “how long the witness who says there was a thickset man at the wheel have him in his view”, “what was the distance over the observation”, “what was the lighting like, had the witness or either of them ever seen the man identified before”, the judge hadn’t given any direction and so this area was as he stated to the jury “one were he was trespassing” when in fact the learned judge should have given direction.







Mr Edward

Dear Sir/Madam
The appellant applied for an extension for which to appeal against conviction after instructions were received whilst in prison the application was within the time limit, the appellant had a solicitor act pro bono whilst in custody who kept the appeal office up to date but can no longer act without legal funded assistance.
Many attempts were made by the appellants friend Mr Parr to get a response from defence counsel however he was directed to the Bar Standards Board to continue the appellants complaint and further advice on grounds of appeal based on new evidence could not be considered as the complaint against counsel raised an issue on conflict of interest.
Whilst this did not assist the appellants appeal against conviction the complaint is lodged and the delays have been noted.
Requests were made to the police and Mold crown court for further evidence (tapes) and have now been concluded therefore the appellant offers his apologies for any delays in bringing this appeal before the court and also to it design without the help of legal aid or legal backing.
The appellant continues to protest his innocence and that the verdict is not safe or satisfactory and that all the new evidence and other issues raised herein require an appeal to be formally presented to the appeal court for consideration.
There was suppression of evidence leading to procedural irregularity in the production of photographs and the playing of the DVD at trial. In relation to the DVD footage and its inability to “pause” coupled with the fact the audio was withheld from the jury and the lack of objection to the issues of mistaken identity, I have to conclude having sat the trial it is evident that there was indeed grave malpractice.
The exhibits referred to as DVD GR2 and MS/1 are not in my possession and would have to be obtained from the CPS.

Yours Sincerely


E Hughes


I lost my business my home everything I ever worked for even my liberty.