justice for kevin lane
19
132
 
    Khan And Bashir
  • In 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed the 1999 conviction of Khan and Bashir because of concerns about Spackman’s role in that case.

  • This is what Mr Evans, Counsel for Mr Bashir said at paragraph 16 in his Advice on Appeal dated 08-04-05.

  • “In my opinion Mr Spackman’s accounts in interview show a history of dishonesty and a history of tampering or falsifying police records in cases he was involved in at least as far back as the investigation of Mr Bashir’s case”.

  • The car suggested by the police that may have been used in the murder had previously belonged to a Mr Toms who claimed that he had sold the car to a man with an Irish accent who had stated his name was O’Reilley.

  • Fabricated and Withheld Evidence (pdf)


  • A work diary was seized from Kevin that belonged to a man that had previously managed a business for him called Mr Paris. There was an entry in the diary for the name Riley who was an employee of Mr Paris.
  • Spackman had possession of the diary and there is clear evidence that someone had tampered with the entry by attempting to prefix the letter O before the original entry for Riley to make it read O’Riley. DL Fabricated & Withheld Evidence
  • Spackman had also indicated to Kevin’s solicitor that WPC Atkinson had changed her original statement to place Kevin as the unknown driver of the car on the 11th October 1994, two days before Mr Magill was murdered.
  • WPC Atkinson subsequently told the truth at Court and confirmed that Kevin was not the driver of the car.

  • Although Spackman was not successful in persuading WPC Atkinson to change her evidence it does illustrate the arrogance he displayed throughout the case and the lengths he was prepared to go to ensure that Kevin got convicted. WPC Atkinson (pdf)

  • Spackman was responsible for the investigation into Kevin’s finances during the period before the shooting.

  • The Crowns case was that Kevin had no savings in UK Banks and that the money for a new car was paid for from the payment received for shooting Mr Magill. It was further submitted that Kevin had debts at the time.

  • Kevin did have savings, but they were not kept in banks because he was concerned that the money would be seized by bailiffs acting for a company he was in dispute with over commercial premises he had leased.

  • Kevin was living in both the UK and Tenerife and had other sources of income that included selling wholesale counterfeit goods and Timeshares.

  • Spackman’s investigation took him to Tenerife and he reported that he found no evidence to suggest that Kevin had any alternative savings or sources of income.

  • Spackman’s inaccurate findings were to play a crucial part in Kevin’s subsequent conviction.

  • Owen Cleary gave evidence and confirmed that he kept money belonging to Kevin in his safe and that on at least four occasions he sent a total of £13.000 to Kevin in Tenerife during the latter half of 1994.

  • It has now emerged that Spackman spoke to a Mr Sillett in Tenerife and that it was confirmed that money had been sent to Kevin from Mr Cleary and that Kevin sold wholesale goods in both the UK and Tenerife.

  • Spackman never disclosed the contents of his interviews with Mr Sillett, or the banks records.

  • Mr Sillett also claims that he informed Spackman that he was willing to come to court to give evidence but that Spackman threatened to have him arrested if he set foot in the UK for child maintenance money he owed.