Appendix 3
HCDA 25 February 1994 news release
MALCOLM KENNEDY DENIED A FAIR TRIAL
Patrick Quinn, an Irishman, was murdered in Hammersmith police station in December 1990. That same evening Malcolm Kennedy had been arrested for being drunk and disorderly. Kennedy was charged with murdering Quinn, and later convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment at the Old Bailey.
Following Kennedy's conviction, disturbing new evidence came to light concerning the police officer who arrested Quinn. It was discovered that PC Paul Giles had a history of violence, and strong views on Irish politics. The Court of Appeal ordered a retrial so that a jury could hear all the evidence, including about Giles' character.
Kennedy's retrial commenced in September 1993. For two days, Mike Mansfield, Kennedy's counsel, cross examined Giles about his capacity for violence, his arrest of Quinn, his suspicion that Quinn was a terrorist and the fact that his wife washed blood off his clothes after the murder. Giles drank more than 10 carafes of water in that time, and it was patently obvious that he was not a credible witness.
After two days cross examination, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dramatically introduced new evidence which they claimed supported the police version of events. At a critical moment, the re-trial was abandoned and a new date set for 21 February 1994.
On the first day of the re-trial, the CPS informed the defence that they would not be calling Giles to give evidence ever.
The CPS's decision not to call Giles, which has been supported by the trial judge, undermines the administration of justice. It has caused a constitutional crisis in law and has denied Malcolm Kennedy the right to a fair trial.
The CPS was set up in 1986 to conduct criminal prosecutions, which had previously been conducted by the police. One of the reasons for setting up the CPS as an independent service was so that it can check the quality of evidence collected by the police. If a police officer's evidence is suspect, and raises questions about that officer's role in a case and is of enough significance to raise doubts about a defendant's guilt, then the CPS has a duty to discontinue the case. In the Kennedy case, the CPS has not acted independently. HCDA believes CPS lawyers have colluded with police officers and instead of abandoning its case as a result of an uncredible witness, have abandoned the witness.
Regarding the death of Patrick Quinn, Malcolm Kennedy's defence has exposed a police cover-up. The police and legal establishment have conspired to clamp down on the public knowing the full details of that cover up by causing the first Kennedy re-trial to be abandoned and by refusing to call Giles in the second. Kennedy may be the victim in the dock, but the greatest casualty is British justice. The Court has decided that it is the right of the Crown to call the evidence which pleases it in a situation where they have had one trial, one Court of Appeal hearing and one re-trial to work out which evidence proves their case, and to discard any evidence which does not.
Appendix 4
10 May 1994 House of Commons Early Day Motion (taken from Hansard)
That this House notes with concern the conviction of Malcolm Kennedy for the manslaughter of Patrick Quinn in a cell at Hammersmith police station on 24 December 1990; notes that this result was achieved after only one trial, one successful appeal and two retrials; notes that when the Court of Appeal quashed Mr Kennedy's original conviction they called for all the new evidence to be put before a jury; further notes that, despite this, the Crown went to some lengths to resist the presentation of evidence to a jury which might have implicated officers of the Metropolitan Police in the death of Mr Quinn; also notes defence allegations that police records were re-written or withheld; believes that Mr Justice Swinton Thomas erred in allowing the trial to go ahead in the absence of PC Paul Giles, the officer who it was alleged returned home with blood on his shirt and who has a history of violence and instability; believes that the conviction of Mr Kennedy is unsafe and invites the Appeal Court to rule accordingly.
Comments