Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Prisoner accuses police of letting him 'rot in jail'

Heather Mills,Home Affairs Correspondent
Thursday 17 June 1993 18:02 EDT
Comments

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.

ONE OF Britain's longest-serving prisoners yesterday accused police and the Home Office of lying and letting him 'rot in jail' for the past 21 years.

Paul Cleeland, who has protested his innocence of the 1972 shotgun murder of a colleague, made the claim in an emotional outburst as he passed the first hurdle in his High Court fight to clear his name. He was given the go-ahead to pursue a judicial review, which he hopes will expose the injustice he says he has suffered.

Cleeland, now 50, has always maintained that he was framed for the killing of Terry Clarke. A series of anomolies in the case have aroused concern - the murder was witnessed by Mr Clarke's wife, who gave a description which bore no resemblance to Cleeland; three experts suggested that the ancient weapon, said to have been used by Cleeland, could not have caused the dead man's injuries; Cleeland records at Wandsworth jail in south London, were altered in a way which may have affected his first appeal in 1976; John McCafferty, the 'expert' who gave damning firearms evidence, turned out to have no formal qualifications in forensic chemistry; and an investigation into Cleeland's allegation of perjury against police officers and Mr McCafferty, now dead, carried out by E J Boothby, then an assistant chief constable of Northamptonshire, has remained secret.

It is over the Boothby report, that Cleeland is now seeking his judicial review. He is challenging a magistrate's decision not to issue a summons under common law against Mr Boothby, alleging misconduct by a public official. Cleeland is seeking to argue that Mr Boothby failed to carry out a full inquiry because he did not obtain a trial transcript.

Cleeland has been in jail for so long because of the sentence review system which dictates that those who maintain their innocence do not qualify for early parole because they are not facing up to their offences. He believes there is resistance to re-opening his case because to cast doubt on scientific evidence given by Mr McCafferty could lead to a review of other notorious cases in which he was involved.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in