In July 1993 the three men were grated leave of appeal but then in a perverse and illogical judgment the Court of Appeal proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
There was no forensic, identification, confessional or direct evidence against the defendants. The prosecution case relied on circumstantial evidence and contradictory evidence for four key prosecution witnesses without whom the three black men could not have been convicted.
In view of the nature and importance of the evidence given by these witnesses, and their potential motives for lying, it would obviously have been of the greatest assistance to the defence in undermining their credibility to be able to establish that such an incentive as receiving some or all of the £25,000 reward would have been a powerful motive to fabricate evidence against the defendants.
Did the four key witnesses recevie some or all of the £25,000 reward ?
A request to the police and prosecution prior to the trial for disclosure of the name/s of the person/s who received the reward was refused. When giving evidence at the trial all four key prosecution witnesses denied expectations of receiving some or all of the £25,000 reward if the defendants were convicted.
If the four key witnesses, whose evidence was strenuously challenged, received or were promised a share of the reward money, that piece of information by itself would have been a crucial piece of evidence for the defence to know and put before the jury.
In October 1992, January 1993 and June 1993 the defence applied to the Court of Appeal to request they order the police and prosecution to disclose the information about who received the reward. However , the court of Appeal upheld the police and prosecution Public Interest Immunity Certificate, so called gagging order, to suppress the information and refused to order the disclosure of the name/s of the person/s who received the reward.
Both before and after the decision not to disclose the information the M25 case the Court of Appeal has held that a failures by the prosecution to disclose the fact that prosecution witness whose evidence is challenged had applied for or received a reward for giving information is a material irregularity which justifies overturning a conviction.
The convictions in R v Taylor & Taylor were quashed in June 1993 by Lord Justice McCowan who regarded the non disclosure of a request for a reward by a witness as plainly relevant to his credibility and therefore disclosable.
Moreover, when overturning the conviction at the Court of Appeal in R v Rasheed on the 17 May 1994, Lord Justice Steyn said "As a matter of common sense, a request for a reward by a witness might have bearing on his motives for coming to give evidence, It must, therefore, always be disclosed by the police to the crown prosecution Service, and the prosecution must disclose it to the defence".
In light of the Court of Appeal ruling in the Rasheed the M25 Case lawyers wrote to the crown Prosecution Service to request disclosure of the names of those who requested the reward, but they still refused to disclose the information.
Each individual case should be considered on its own merit but the similarities between the evidence relied on to convict Rasheed and that in the M25 Case are significant. Yet the inconsistency with which the law on disclosure was applied in these cases is perverse, along with the use of Public Interest Immunity Certificate to suppress information that goes to the very heart of witnesses motivation in giving evidence.
Why have the Police, Prosecution and Court of Appeal continuously denied the M25 defence team access to the information regarding who requested and received the reward ?
A £25,000 reward was paid in this case but who received it ?
The Daily Mail newspaper who contributed £10,000 of the £25,000 reward were approached and asked if they would be prepared to investigate the possibility that the money paid by the Daily Mail may have been paid to accomplices to a criminal offence and or the actual perpetrators of the offences.
The Daily Mail Deputy Managing Editor, Gareth Burden replied, " The Daily Mail reported on 31 March 1990 that it would be sending a cheque for £10,000 to the Chief Constable Of Surrey, who would pass it on to the anonymous source who revealed where the three accused lived. If you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that a reward was paid to accomplices and/or the actual perpetrators of the offence, we would certainly examine it".
After sending details to Mr Gareth Burden to substantiate the possibility the reward had been paid to accomplices and or the actual perpetrators of the offences he replied "As far as we are concerned the money was paid to the Chief Constable. We do not know to whom the money was passed on."
Despite the trial judges warnings to the jury they must have accepted the four key witnesses evidence against the defendants, and therefore any relevant material that was not disclosed concerning them denied the defence the opportunely to demonstrate that they may have been prejudiced, hostile or unreliable, particularly where a £25,000 reward may have been powerful motive for perjury. As a minimum to safeguard the rights of the defendants to a fair trial in respect of the evidence given by the witnesses the European Court of Human Rights have held that the 'equality of arms' principle in criminal cases imposes on prosecuting and investigating authorities an obligation to disclose any material in their possession, which may assist the accused in exonerating himself. Such a duty, the commission has reasoned, is necessary to redress the inequality of resources between the prosecution and defence. This principal extends to material which might undermine the credibility of a prosecution witness.
If the four key witnesses anticipated receiving the reward money when they made their statements and when they gave their evidence in court then this would be motivation to implicate the three black men in the crimes.
Why when three innocent men are serving life sentences can information of this importance still remain un-disclosed ?
M25 CASE CAMPAIGN