Blog entry 22nd February 2014
In the next 7 days my appeal team at Wells Burcombe will be sending all the relevant evidence to the barrister. He will go through it all and give an 'advice on appeal'.
This will mean that he'll give his professional opinion as to whether I have sufficient grounds to prepare an application for either the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), or the Court of Appeal. To assist with this my appeal case manager (Steve Sinclair) and I have put together a detailed set of papers out-lining the numerous facts that underpin my appeal grounds, These range from significant errors and inconsistencies relating to the prosecutions dna claims at trial, to the prosecutions continued withholding of forensic documentation and evidence which proves my innocence. All of you who read the downloadable file at the start of the site will have a good overview of the grounds we have asked the barrister to consider.
How long the barrister will require to produce his advice is anyone's guess, but this is a process that cannot be rushed. We have one chance at this with the barrister, so it has to be done right.
If the barrister provides a positive advice on appeal there may still be a lot of ground work to do. We already know that the dna match claims made by the prosecution at my trial were misleading in areas and untrue in the whole. Because of this we would need to seek permission to have the original crime scene dna sample (DAR/6 & 8) independently retested. We also know that Kent Police and Crown Prosecution Service continue to deny my appeal team forensic documentation that should have been disclosed to me for my trial in 2000. This documentation defines the existence of forensic evidence that proves I am not Susan Kent's murderer.
I requested that from Kent CPS back in 2005. They responded stating that they were:
"Satisfied that the obligations of disclosure were properly complied with in this case."
However, their response finished with:
"Should you obtain leave to appeal your conviction I will of course reconsider the situation."
This raises the point that if the 'obligations of disclosure' had been met as claimed what would there be for Kent CPS to reconsider if I am given leave to appeal? These are all points that my appeal supporters and I believe would have been sufficient to cause reasonable doubt had my trial jury not been denied this evidence by Kent CPS's failure to disclose it, knowingly or otherwise.
My Fiance, supporters and I now wait with baited breath...