The Bridgewater Four

[cruororism]

If the cases of Carol Hanson and James Hanratty were of police jigsaw puzzles which were never satisfactorily completed (that is, the investigation was terminated when many less than half of the pieces had been fitted to the picture), then the case of the Bridgewater Four was one where clearly the pieces were tailored to fit where they should not.

Top Defence QC Michael Mansfield put it rather succinctly: [There was] "serious and substantial widespread police malpractice." And, later at the successful appeal, "[this is] only part of a much wider situation. A small part of widespread police malpractice involving a number of officers of every rank. A whole series of dominoes that flowed from the time of the police investigation right through to the conduct of Molloy's case and what happened at the trial." Later still he referred to the "vine of corruption and dishonesty which runs through the whole case."

And Bridgewater came hot on the heels of the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, The Glasgow Two, and the Birmingham Six. All cases where Mansfield's dominoes crash landed because of contrived and sustained police malpractice.

In each case, say defenders of the various Home Secretaries of Conservative governments over the past 18 years, the Home Office was quick to arrange a judicial hearing days after any new evidence was offered. In the case of the Bridgewater Four, (until the very end) this is entirely contrary to the truth. On three separate occasions the Home secretary was in possession of information which could well have thrown an entirely different light on their guilt or innocence. On the last occasion, in 1990, they had irrefutable evidence that a serious malpractice had taken place - and they studiously ignored it. Only seven years later, when a disgruntled former civil servant from the HO could no longer live with his conscience and informed the defence, did the whole thing finally come out.

For those who may have missed the tidal wave of headlines as a result of the men's release on February 2 1997, a brief résumé:

19 September 1978 Carl Bridgewater, a 13-year-old paper boy was brutally shot when he presumably disturbed a robbery on his rounds at Yew Tree Farm, near Stourbridge in the Midlands. The murder horrified the nation and there was immediate pressure on the police to bring the case to a conclusion. This involved not only almost the entire local force, but a small army of extra police from the West Midlands Regional Crime Squad. This last factor had a considerable influence on the outcome of the police investigation.

30 November 1978 A similar robbery took place at nearby Chapel Farm, Romsley. Similar, except that no one was murdered. Local police investigations quickly led them to Patrick Molloy, a known small-time crook. Molloy had in fact taken part in the robbery at Chapel Farm, and so had the other three, cousins Michael and Vincent Hickey, and James Robinson. Under pressure, Molloy first made a statement that he had been at Yew Tree farm on the afternoon when Carl was shot. He had been upstairs looking for valuables at the time of the shooting. All three men were soon arrested.

9 November 1979 The Hickeys and Robinson were found guilty of murdering Carl after a month-long trial at Stafford Crown Court. Molloy was convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault and awarded twelve years. The other three were recommended to spend 25 years in prison. Molloy died in prison in June 1981.

November 1981 For the first time the name of another man, Hubert Spencer, an ambulance driver, was introduced. There had been no identification of any of the four men. But an eye-witness did later say she had seen a man in a blue uniform leaving the farm at the estimated time of the murder. Spencer, a uniformed ambulance driver, had also been found guilty of murder and robbery on another case and had dealt with his victims in identical ways. He also knew Carl Bridgewater, among many other relevant factors. The Fours' defence argued there was now reasonable doubt. The judge, Lord Lane, dismissed the argument out of hand as being a "red herring".

February 1983 The Hickey cousins tried to draw attention to their innocence by staging a dramatic rooftop prison protest. It was a bitterly cold winter, but they managed to stay outside for a record number of days.

April 1983 The Home Secretary ordered a new probe into the case, after complaints had been made about the police conduct during the investigation. The police themselves came to the conclusion that there was no case to answer and the probe was ended.

October 1987 Home Secretary Douglas Hurd referred the case back to the court of appeal. It became the longest appeal hearing in history, but on March 17, 1989 the court rejected the appeal and upheld the original charges.

[cruororism]

July 1989 The defendants were refused further leave to appeal despite the fact that members of West Midlands Regional Crime Squad were being investigated on 97 separate charges of malpractice. The case created such a furore that the entire squad was disbanded. Det. Con. John Perkins, who has since died, and who was the conductor of the crucial Molloy interview which "created" the vital 'confession', was indicted, cautioned and fined for "violence towards suspects and helping to fabricate evidence". Seventeen other charges were brought against him. The appeal court ruled that this was irrelevant to the Bridgewater convictions.

4 February 1993 Home Secretary Kenneth Clarke again refused to refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal for a second review.

November 1994 The High Court ordered Home Secretary Michael Howard to release the documents which Kenneth Clarke had considered and on which he had based his decision to refuse a further appeal. It was discovered that Clarke had ignored vital new evidence - evidence which was to gradually lead to the convictions being quashed. This new pressure, however, led to growing public concern, resulting in widespread TV documentary coverage and questions in parliament. It had now been found that the HO had quietly not admitted that the police had clearly ignored the fact that a different set of fingerprints had been found on the bicycle of Carl Bridgewater. Whoever the murderer was had picked up the bike and pushed it into a nearby waste silo. It was argued that this was crucial new evidence which should have led to a new trial. Despite this, Mr. Howard told parliament he was "not minded" to refer the case back.

May 1996 Defence lawyers made yet another application for a referral. Howard announced on 26 July 1996 that it should be referred back to the Court of Appeal.

February 1997 Defence lawyers submitted new evidence based on advanced technology which proved beyond doubt that Perkins and another officer, Graham Leeke, had fabricated and forged a confession from Vincent Hickey, in order to bully the further, crucial, confession from Molloy. The Court of Appeal agreed and quickly quashed the verdict.

Throughout the investigations and beyond, no forensic evidence of any kind was ever submitted to any court. No fingerprints were ever found. No murder weapon ever turned up. There were no witnesses. Indeed, the only forensic evidence, and witnesses, known to the police clearly indicated that it was someone else who was guilty. From start to finish the entire prosecution case was based solely on the confessions of Michael Hickey and Patrick Molloy.

Molloy's confession occurred after days of violent interrogation, during which his teeth were broken and he was consistently hit around the face and head. For the first ten days he was not allowed access to a lawyer. When he was, he immediately retracted any statement he had made. During this time his food was heavily salted and he was denied liquids. In desperation, he drank from the toilet. His sleep was interrupted regularly during the night. He was heavily traumatised and weakened by the treatment. He was offered immediate bail if he signed a confession, linking the other three. The final twist came when he was shown a signed confession from Vincent Hickey accusing him of the murder. Even then, he did not crack. He alleged later that Perkins held him by the hair and read his confession in one ear while Graham Leeke wrote it down. He was, however, in a traumatised state of desperation when he signed it.

Vincent's "confession", it was later conclusively proved, was a forgery. This was known to the HO at least five years before the final leave of appeal was granted. It came about because of a new forensic technique called Electrostatic Definition Analysis (ESDA). This showed (i) that the signature on the confession could not have been Vincent's; (ii) that it was forged onto a second, more genuine, confession. The imprint on the first, under electrostatic techniques showed up clearly on the second sheet. Only when Molloy's QC, Mike Mansfield, demanded to see these documents, and have them analysed himself, did the truth finally come out.

(Mansfield is a brilliant lawyer who has forged a formidable reputation as the "poor man's advocate" for he specialises in cases of suspected miscarriages, often when many others, including the lawyers, have thrown away the key. He never gave up on this one, having been convinced at an early stage that Molloy was telling the truth. In the Bridgewater case, as in many other notable ones, he was one man against the system and, not for the first time, he eventually won).

We will never be able to bring John Perkins to trial for his handling of the Bridgewater Four, for he has died. Probably from high blood pressure brought about by trying to live with his guilt. His sidekick Graham Leeke is still very much alive and, immediately after the release of the surviving three, his solicitors, Russell Jones and Walker made a defensive statement on his behalf protesting his innocence and insisting that over the past 18 years he had been cleared of any offences by countless different inquiries. He was cleared, however, before ESDA was able to prove beyond doubt that he was a fellow conspirator and participant in a most heinous piece of police malpractice.

(Russell Jones and Walker are retained at a very fat fee by the Police Federation which is extremely rich and litigious. The Federation account brings in at least one million pounds a year for their solicitors. They specialise in bringing swingeing libel actions against any newspaper, mainly local weeklies, which might criticise an officer. They represent officers at any and every disciplinary hearing. They can afford, and regularly retain, the very best legal minds in the UK. Leeke will be well represented).