Guantanamo Bay or HMP Full Sutton?
Article 10: Freedom of Expression
(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
I am, for the first time in many years, genuinely shocked by the news I have received this morning. The latest move by the security Unit at HMP Full Sutton is to ban ALL telephone calls and letters between myself and Ricky Percival because they claim that he is writing a book with me. This is a blatant lie disguised to further hamper the progress of my book about the murder of Dean Boshell and other related matters.
They imposed a ban on me visiting him because they said I had used aliases to contact prisoners in the past. When I pointed out that this was to extract information from those that had raped and murdered women and children (Shaun Armstrong, Ian Huntley, Richard Blenkey, Roy Whiting Peter Sutcliffe, David Copeland etc..) They said they found my reply `very interesting` but the ban would remain in place. On Friday I sent (recorded, next day delivery) Percival copies of statements from new witnesses and original documents that I have found. These were to be read by him and passed to his Legal Team.
These statements WILL undoubtedly throw a whole new light on the case. When the prison received this correspondence today, they told Percival that he could not have them and imposed the ban. I am concerned what has happened to this important new evidence. I have written to some real scum over the last 15-16 years including Huntley etc....but NEVER have I had such a sinister ban imposed. Percival is NOT helping me to write any book.
That has been stated in sworn affidavits and undertakings to the prison Governors at HMP Chelmsford, HMP Full Sutton and to Percivals Legal team. EVERYBODY in the case has been asked if they want to have their say and that includes Damon Alvin who was sent a letter via his Solicitor. The victims Mother is keen for me to speak to everybody as she firmly believes that too many questions have been left unanswered, she has assisted me in writing the book.
This most recent act is the authorities behaving at their most sinister. Percival has been convicted, the proceeds of the book have already paid for the victims memorial, the criminal is not benefiting from the book, the victims family want the book to go ahead yet the authorities are determined to suppress it. Is that what the Labour Government intend to do to free Speech when their plans to stop criminals writing books about their crimes becomes Law? This book is not about any crime I am alleged to have committed, Percival is NOT contributing to the text of the book, what is the problem? I believe they fear the truth will expose the fact that the most blatant miscarriage of justice in recent times will be exposed.
I am not saying Percival is innocent, I am not saying that he is guilty, I simply do not know because he did not get a fair trial. Damon Alvin knows that, the police know that the victims mother knows that and Percival himself knows that.
HMP FULL SUTTON PLEASE READ
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (now allegedly incorporated into British law) states: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.'
This should not exclude prisoners because the House of Lords ruled in 1983 that they retained all basic rights, except those necessarily taken away as a consequence of their imprisonment. In 1999 five Law Lords ruled that a ban on journalists visiting prisoners and writing about their cases was an unlawful interference with free speech. They said that prisoners who protested their innocence, often had no other means of searching out the fresh evidence needed to have their cases looked at again.
Lords Browne-Wilkinson, Steyn, Hoffmann, Hobhouse and Millett declared that the policy of banning media visits was unlawful as was a prison governors' refusal to allow journalists interviews with inmates unless they agreed not to write about cases. The Law Lords decision was strongly influenced by an affidavit from Gareth Peirce, a solicitor who has acted for more than 20 miscarriage of justice victims.
She told the Law Lords there was no legal aid available to prisoners for investigations and that more than 90% of applicants to the Criminal Cases Review Commission had no solicitor. The resources available to television and the national and local press provided the best chance of discovering new evidence, she added. In his closing address, Lord Steyn said that freedom of speech was `the lifeblood of democracy` acting `as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials.`
THE BOOK IS ALL BUT FINISHED, IT IS DUE TO BE DELIVERED ON THE 3rd OF JANUARY. THIS MOVE ONLY ENSURES, I WILL NOW DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO HIGHLIGHT THIS CASE. |
