The Case of Peter Hakala
Our recent history is replete with examples of innocent people being imprisoned. Yet, how much of the arrogance, indifference and abuse of power that facilitates this situation is new?
In the second volume of his ‘Revelations of Prison Life’ George Laval Chesterton who governed the ‘House of Correction’ at Cold Bath Fields, London for twenty five years, argues that “There is always something perfectly ludicrous in the all but universal claim to innocence on the part of convicts of all degrees.”
Chesterton’s work was published in two volumes in 1856. Challenging injustice was hard in his day and, even with the advents of the Criminal Cases review Commission, The Police and Criminal Evidence Act etc it is a hard and stressful business today. During my prisoner support activities I have seen time and again that the system is interested in results rather than truth.
Jury members asleep even though warned by the Judge. Judges themselves asleep, fabricated statements, confessions obtained under obvious duress accepted by courts, wrongly withheld evidence are all commonplace. Many innocent and vulnerable people suffer at the hands of the state one such being Peter Hakala who has been wrongly incarcerated for over twenty years for a crime I believe he did not commit.
Peter was arrested in 1986. We know that two police officers falsified and fabricated statements allegedly made by him. Linguistic expert examined two statements with the genuine one Peter made and concluded that the genuine one and the two forgeries could not have been made the same person.
One statement has a start time that tallied with the finish time.
On one page he found that the first page had been written well after the second.
Numerous pages had been rewritten.
Both the police officers linked with Peter disregarded the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that, was quite new at the time yet, this cannot be an excuse for disregarding its requirements such as a solicitor present and tape recording of evidence.
At one point Peter was able to obtain a retrial at that began at the Old Bailey then was moved to Southwark when it was half way completed. Not only that but a key witness was deported to Australia in a move mysteriously orchestrated by the police.
There has never been incriminating forensic evidence against Peter.
From what has been said matters are clearly unsatisfactory – there is clear evidence of “reasonable doubt.”
The advice given at one stage not to question the integrity of the Police is clearly wrong.
While there is doubt as to the authenticity of the statements no consensus having ever been sought let along reached do not the interests of justice dictate that Peter should be the beneficiary of the doubt? … and one could go on..Peter’s case needs to be seriously looked at again – he needs support and legal help- please write to him at
Peter Hakala 444089
H.M.P. Frankland
Brasside
Durham
DH1 5YD

Or contact me at  georgecmbs@tiscali.co.uk
George Coombs