Justice For Kevin Lane - Criminal Cases Review Commission

Criminal Cases Review Commission

In 1998 Kevin applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to have his case referred to the Court of Appeal.

Part of the submissions concerned allegations that Spackman had fabricated evidence with Roger Vincent and David Smith and withheld other evidence that would have proved Kevin’s innocence.
It was also submitted that Spackman had done a deal with Vincent that would result in his and acquittal at the expense of Kevin’s conviction.

These submissions may have sounded preposterous at the time because Spackman was perceived as an honest high ranking officer with an unblemished record. Kevin’s allegations would be somewhat vindicated however over the next few years.

These submissions may have sounded preposterous at the time because Spackman was perceived as an honest high ranking officer with an unblemished record. Kevin’s allegations would be somewhat vindicated however over the next few years.

Peter Taylor from the CCRC contacted Kevin’s solicitor on the 18th September 2003 and made the following comments: “The representations were just what they had been looking for, and commented on the fact that they were very well argued and so far as witnesses are concerned, it is the view of the CCRC that they should interview witnesses alone. In previous cases appellants have been criticised on the basis that they have instructed their solicitor’s to see witnesses in advance of the CCRC investigation and it had been suggested that this was to prime witnesses about what they should say. Thus, his view is that it is better that witnesses are seen by the CCRC as they are an independent body and no such criticism can be made.

Peter Taylor also said he would be speaking to his colleagues in the CCRC and coming to a decision as how to best take the case forward and what they should do and he would call in a couple of weeks.
The CCRC refused Kevin’s first application on the 15th October 2003 (27 days from the 18-10-03) without carrying our one single interview and stated the following: “The Commission has now considered your application for a review of your conviction. On the information currently available to it, the Commission is not minded to refer your case for a fresh appeal”.

Kevin contacted the CCRC and expressed that although he was very disappointed with its decision he was concerned that his application did not receive a fair review and was suspicious that Mr Baden Skitt, the former Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police at the time of Mr Magill’s murder, was one of the 14 CCRC members.
The CCRC stated in its response: “…it was inevitable that members of the CCRC knew the police in Mr Lanes case, or knew someone who knew them; however this has not caused bias…”

They did invite him to make further submissions in the light of Spackman’s imprisonment but again refused Kevin’s application and commented that it could not see how Spackman’s imprisonment affected the safety of Kevin’s conviction.

Kevin and his defence team have had to do what the police and CCRC should have done (and are better equipped to do), and that is investigate evidence built on formidable details based on existing evidence that suggests other suspects for the Magill murder. When that evidence is tallied with the related developments arising from this sensitive material, the only logical conclusion that can be arrived at is that Kevin’s conviction is unsafe.

Kevin is only too painfully aware from his previous dealings with the CCRC and Hertfordshire CPS that he is battling up hill and welcomes your support for Justice to be done.