THE killers of Aston shooting victims Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare are making a new bid for freedom after a European court ruling questioned the use of anonymous witnesses.
The case of Marcus Ellis and Rodrigo Simms is to be re-examined by the European Court of Human Rights, which could deem their original trial unfair – paving the way for a fresh appeal against their 2005 murder convictions, which saw them caged for life.
Defence lawyers claim they did not have a fair trial because a key witness – a convicted robber using the pseudonym Mark Brown – was allowed to give crucial evidence against them.
In an unprecedented move – which according to Ellis’ barrister defied ‘1,000 years of common law in this country’ – Mr Brown was allowed to testify behind a curtain and had his voice electronically distorted.
During the murder trial at Leicester Crown Court, the jury heard how Mr Brown was paid thousands of pounds in police payments to help protect him after he agreed to testify against the four men.
He was the only prosecution witness to name three of the four defendants as being the killers of Charlene, 18, and 17- year-old Letisha.
The innocent girls were shot dead outside a New Year’s party in Aston on January 2, 2003, in a botched revenge attack by members of the Burger Bar Boys.
While they were standing outside with friends, the gang members drove by and fired a sub-machine gun, hitting both girls several times.
Charlene’s twin sister, Sophie, and their cousin Cheryl Shaw were also shot, but survived.
Gang members Nathan Martin, 26, Marcus Ellis, 24, Michael Gregory, 23, and 20-year-old Rodrigo Simms were all jailed for life after being convicted of murder and attempted murder.
An appeal by all four men was turned down at Woolwich Crown Court in 2006 and they were refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
But last month the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in Strasbourg, made a decisive ruling on two other British cases involving anonymous witnesses.
The court agreed that the testimony of an anonymous witness could NOT be the ‘sole and decisive’ evidence to convict a defendant because the right to a fair trial may not be met.
Last night, Ellis and Simms’ solicitor Errol Robinson told the Birmingham Mail that the ruling had opened the way for a fresh appeal.
He said: “My clients’ convictions are a grave miscarriage of justice following one of the most unfair trials of modern times.
“If someone is accusing you of anything, let alone a matter of this gravity, you really ought to know who that person is so you can investigate the motives for that person giving evidence, so that there is a fair trial.
‘‘Without Mark Brown there was no real case to answer.”
The lawyer said a delayed appeal to the European Court of Human Rights will now go ahead for his clients, following the landmark ruling.
He said: “The matter is now in the hands of the European Court of Human Rights who will re-examine the case and make a decision as to whether the trial was fair.
“If they rule that it was not, then the case will return to a British court who may decide on a retrial or quash the convictions immediately.
‘‘This could all potentially happen by the end of the year.
“A retrial would be almost impossible because of all the publicity surrounding the case and the fact that the prosecution would be without their main witness.
“Our argument has always been quite simple, in that the original trial judge should never have granted anonymity to Mr Brown.
“It was proven that this witness was untrustworthy and a man of flawed character. He was a convicted robber who had spent time in prison and openly admitted his association with gang members.’’
The use of anonymous witnesses is on the increase in the UK, particularly in gangland cases. Between July 2008 and 2009 a total of 343 witness anonymity orders were issued.
Purcell and Parker Solicitors, who represent Michael Gregory, were unavailable for comment last night. Nathan Martin does not have legal representation.
* CHARLENE Ellis’ mother, Beverley Thomas, last night hit out at any potential new appeal and defended the use of anonymous witnesses.
She said: ‘‘I’m always hearing about unfair trials but how unfair was it for them to go out there and shoot four girls and take two lives?
‘‘There is no doubt about the credibility of the witnesses in the case. I have faith in British justice.’’
And Letisha’s mum Marcia Shakespeare said: ‘‘The only way to get any form of justice sometimes is to have anonymity for witnesses.
‘‘When you have murderers going around killing innocent people, who in their right minds will come forward to give evidence?
‘‘I did not know anything about this possible appeal, yet we are supposed to be kept aware of any developments.’’
After the 2005 murder trial, the Crown Prosecution Service also defended its use of anonymous witnesses.
David Blundell, the then Chief Crown Prosecutor for the West Midlands, said: “One of the things police had to address was how we could persuade witnesses who had seen or heard relevant evidence to come forward.
“Witnesses were not prepared to give evidence without protection.
“The prosecution had to make massive inquiries into the background of all the witnesses and all the background had to be disclosed to the defence, so it wasn’t as if the defence didn’t know about the people.”
Comments
Post a Comment