UK: Exposure of "perjured evidence" sets M25 Three free
01 June 2000
Three black men, who were convicted for murder following a series of burglaries in the M25 corridor in December 1988 that culminated in the death of 51-year old Peter Hurburgh, were freed from prison on 17 July (see Statewatch vol 10 no 1, vol 9 no 3/4, vol 2 no 6). The "M25 three" - Raphael Rowe, Michael Davis and Randolph Johnson - walked from the Court of Appeal after judges said that they could not be sure that their convictions were safe due to a highly disturbing "conspiracy" between the police and an informer, who was also a key prosecution witness, to give perjured evidence. While the judges saw fit to pronounce that their judgement was not a finding of innocence, the men's lawyers are demanding an inquiry into the conduct of Surrey police officers involved in the case.
On the nights of 15-16 December 1988 three masked men conducted a series of violent attacks off the M25 motorway in Surrey, which left one man dead and another with knife wounds; two houses were robbed and four cars stolen. The victims identified their attackers as two white men and a black man, but three black men Rowe, Davis and Johnson were arrested after police received a tip off. After a six-week trial, at which no forensic, confessional or direct evidence was presented against the defendants, they were sentenced to life terms in March 1990. The prosecution case had relied on the evidence of a Surrey police informant, Norman Duncan.
The three men protested their innocence and their lawyers appealed against the convictions in 1993, arguing that they had been convicted on the evidence of unreliable witnesses who had originally been suspects. They lost their appeal but in 1997 the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) ordered a new inquiry into the killing and the police investigation of it. The CCRC referred the case back to the Court of Appeal following a lengthy and critical Greater Manchester police (GMP) review of the original investigation. This was followed by the ECHR decision to refer the case to the European Court of Justice on the grounds that the men were denied a fair trial because "relevant evidence was withheld from the defence on the ground of public interest immunity."
The GMP review brought to light a number of problems with the original Surrey police investigation, in particular the role of their informer, Norman Duncan. Duncan had lived in the same house as Raphael Rowe and Michael Davis and had been arrested, but not charged, with a number of robberies. He was also a suspect for the M25 robberies before he became a key witness. The jury was unaware of this because public interest immunity certificates were issued preventing disclosure. Duncan lied to the jury about the manner in which he had volunteered information to police officers and omitted to mention that he had received a ?10,000 reward from the Daily Mail newspaper.
In his judgement Lord Justice Mantell said there:
"could only have been...collusion with the police. It amounts to no less than a conspiracy to give perjured evidence. We find the fact profoundly disturbing. It must dent the credibility of both Duncan and the police officers directly involved" (Guardian 18.7.00)
Council of Europe Infonote 15, February 2000; M25 Three Campaign link