Despite the overwhelming evidence that linked Jobbins with the M25 crimes he was never charged with any criminal offence. Instead, as stated he became a key prosecution witness against the three black me.

Why was Jobbins never charged with criminal offences he clearly admitted ?

he following text is an extract from the transcript of Jopbbins evidence during cross examination at the trial by Michael Mansfield QC for the defence.

Mansfield " We know, because it has been mentioned, that interviews have bee in your case tape recorded ?"

Jobbins "yes"

Mansfield "But I want to ask you this - Were all your interviews tape recorded ?"

Jobbins "No i don't think the first one was"

Mansfield "I was going to suggest to you that on the face of the record of the first taped interview, it is plain there must have been an earlier one. Do you follow?"

Jobbins "Yes"

Mansfiled "Now, I want to go very carefully with it. The first interview that was not taped, was it recorded in any other way, namely written down?"

Jobbins "I can't recall"

Mansfiled "Who did it? Who did the interview?"

Jobbins "That was Dective Constable Foote and another officer"

Mansfield "And another officer. Can you recall whether that interview was writtenor was somebody writing anything down?"

Jobbins "I think so, yes"

Mansfiled "You think so. How soon after arriving at Reigate was there this interview?"

Jobbins "I have no idea"

Mansfiled "But your recollection, is this fair, is that it was the first one, not taped?"

Jobbins "I think so yes"

The revelation from Jobbins that the police broke interview procedure set out in the Criminal Evidecnce Act raises serious questions.

When did the unrecorderd interview take place?

Why did the police instigate the unrecorded interview with Jjobbins?

What was discussed during the interview ?

Was a deal made, not to charge Jobins if he agreed to implicate the black men ?

Where are the hand written notes of the interview ?

Why have the hand written notes never been disclosed?

Was Jobbins promised a slice of the ú25,000 reward to implicate the black men ?

Before the jury retire to consdier the verdict in a criminal trial the judge lays down the law and summarises the case in his own words. With regard to the revelation from Jobbins, Mr Justice Auld, the trial judge, siad "Jobbins said that after his first interview, which he maintained wrongly was not taped, he decided he would be more forthcoming to the police and name names"

After the convcitions Raphael Rowe made a complaint to the Police Complaints Authourity to request that an investigation be made of the allegation against the two Surrey police officers who carried out the alleged unrecorder interview with Jobbins.

Despite the requeust for an independent enquiry into the allegations the Police Complaints Authourity passed on the complaint to Superintendent R S Harland of Surrey police. He refused to investigate the complaint claiming Rowes' interpretation of the trial judges comments were wrong. In other words the comments from the judge othat Jobbins' "wrongly m,aintained" he had unrecorded interview meant that Jobbins incorrectly accused the police of conducting interview with him.

Were the comments from the trial judge so ambiguous that they could be read in two ways, both of which would mean something different ?

On the 10 Januray 1996 Raphael Rowe wrote to the trial judge seeking clarification of the comments he made in his summing up. He asked the judge is hi comments meant:

a) That you were saying that Jobbins was wrong when he maintained that the interview was not taped, i.e. you were expressing a view on whether Jobbins was right or not about it happenning.

Or alternatively,

b) That Jobbins mainained that the interview was not taped which was a wrong thing to have happenned,. (i.e. a breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.)

On 2 February 1996 the clerk for Mr Justice Auld replied, "He has now lookedat the relevant passages in the transcript of his summing up. He has little or no independent recollection of the evidence in the case. However, from the passages of the transcript, he is of the view that the latter passage means that Jobbins' first interview was taped, but that he maintains wrongly (i.e. mistakenly) that it was not taped".

Not satisfied with the response, Raphael Rowe wrote anopther letter to Mr Justice Auld enclosing a copy of the typed transcript of Jobbins' evidence where he suggested that his first interview was not taped. Rowe stated that he appreciated that it may be dificult for MR Justice Auld to recollect the evidence in the case but he asked for an explanation as to why, on the face of what Jobbins siad, he had the view that Jobbins was mistaken as to whether his first interview was, or was not recorded.

The clerk for the judge replied "As I stand in my letter of 2 February, Lord Justice Auld has little or no indpendent recollection of the evidence in the case. His present interpretation of the relevant passages of the transcript of his umming up is that the latter passages means that Jobbins first interview was taped but that he, Jobbins, maintained wrongly (i.e. mistakenly) that it was not tpaed. Assuming that this is the correct interpretation, Lord Justice Ayulkd has now no view as to its correctness, since he cannot remember the evidecnce on the issue in addition to that of Jobbins,. You will have to rely on you own examination of the transcript of evidence in the case to determine whether Lord Justice Auld's present interpretation of his summing up, correctly reflects the evidence."

Considering the answers Jobbins gave Mansfiled during cross examination, the trial judges interpretation does not reflect the evidence.

Thus an independantenquiry must be conducted to establish :

1) Whether there was an unrecorder interview with Jobbins.

2) Whether there is any written notes that could establish what was siad during the interview. For completeness it is important to mention the fact that other officers involved in the investigation of the M25 crimes and questioning of suspects have been investigated for conductins and unrecordeed interview with one of the other two key witnesses.

Norman uncan was a friend of Jobbins. he admitted examining the Spitfire car two days before he stole it with the third key witness, and five days beofer it was recovered at the scene of the murder and robbery, His fingerprints were also found on the car at the scene of the crime.

Duncan was arrested on the 22 December 1988. Significantly, he fitted the victims description of one of the two white attackers with fair hair and blue eyes. After he had bee brought back to the police station DC James Gallagher and DC David Manhire organised an interview with him which they did not tape record, as required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, or keep any form of written note.

Did the officers instigate the unrecorder interview to encourage Duncan into implicating the young men already charged, rather than treat Duncan as the logical suspect?

The 40 minute unrecorder interview with Duncan was only discovered after the defence examined his police custody record. When put to Duncan during his evidence at the trial he admitted that he had an unrecorder interview with the police and that they spoke to him about crucial issues in the case.

Astoundingly the two officers involved were never called to give evidence so were never questionned in an open court about their conduct in this case. However, they were interviewed by the defence solicitors and although they admitted conducting the unrecorded interview they have denied helping Duncan implicate the defendats, or making any deal with him.

After the convictions Rowe made a complaint to the Police Complaints Authourity requesting an independant enquiry. Again the P.C.D. passed the complaint to R S Harland. An investigation was conducted and completed but a Public Interest Immunity Certificate has been claimed to suppress the findings of the enquiry.

Following the decision of the ouse Of Lords in the case of Regina v Chief Constable of West Midlands ex parte WILEY (where it has held that no Public Interest Immunity should be attached to documents obtained as a result of an investigation into police misconduct), aletter was sent to the P.C,A to request a copy of the report into the organised unrecorded interview. The P.C.S. replied, "whilst we acknowlege that the document no longer attract PII we are, however, advised that they are confidential and as such may not be disclosed..."

It seems wrong that, first the Court of Appeal refuse to dislcose the report by means of a PII Certificate. Now it no longer attracts a PII another excuse not to disclose it has been put forward.

HOW DO WE GET JUSTICE?

The conflicting accounts of what was discussed during the unrecorded interview between Duncan and the Officers establishes that one or the other is lying, but who and why ?

Is the continuous suppression of the report by the police in the public interest or the police interest ?