M25 gang evidence will not be heard
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.NEW EVIDENCE relating to the conviction of three men for the 'M25 gang' crimes will not be heard at their appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.
After a three-hour hearing in private session the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, ruled that the material did not have to be disclosed to the defence. 'In the circumstances there is nothing further to be disclosed in the matters that have been addressed.'
Solicitors for the three believe the evidence relates to police interviews with two men, who admitted to burning stolen cars and handling stolen property, but were never charged.
After the hearing the Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hutchison and Mr Justice Holland disbarred themselves from sitting at the men's appeal in January.
Raphael Rowe, 24, Michael Davis, 26, and Randolph Johnson, 27, all from Sydenham, south-east London, were convicted in March 1990 of murder, robbery, grievous bodily harm and firearm offences after a series of attacks on the night of 15 December 1988, in the Surrey area close to the M25.
John Bevan QC, for the prosecution, told the court the new evidence had presented a 'most difficult problem' for the Crown. 'If I was able to deal with the matter in open court, I would. The plain fact of the matter is I can't'
Although the defence barristers were allowed to hear the new evidence, they refused to do so because they would not have been able to discuss it with their clients.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments