Non-disclosure, the senior investigating officer Chief Inspector Anthony Tagg, did not disclose to either the CPS or the defence legal teams that witnesses had been offered immunity from any prosecution for any criminality they might have committed before coming forward to give statements. This only came out 10 weeks into the trial, when the second senior police officer informed the court. Mr. Tagg when questioned about this non-disclosure was untruthful so untruthful that the judge said Mr. Tagg was "seriously at fault" for having failed to inform counsel (prosecution & defence) of the deal.

West Midlands Police ask to comment on the actions of Mr. Tagg said, 'It is correct that the judge found the senior investigating officer had lied under oath. Our understanding is that it related to a very specific issue at a very specific time and didn't have a wider application around the integrity of the trial. Whatever the officer/s are alleged to have done, had it been so serious as to require the halt of the trial, then that's what the judge would have ordered and he specifically did not do that."

Not quite correct, when this issue came to light, defence claimed abuse of due process and again the jury was removed from the court. There followed three days of arguments from the defence for a mistrial. Judge was quite clear at the end that the non-disclosure was extremely serious and that defence could recall witnesses if they wished to do so. That the trial would resume and the jury would be cautioned as to the evidence given against the defendants that it was seriously tainted. Trial resumed with the jury so advised.
Expert witness gave evidence on video evidence of the cars involved, stating emphatically where and at what times the cars were seen. Much of this evidence was destroyed by the defence, the expert had wrongly identified one of the cars, had said another car was at the scene of the incident at an exact certain time, when it was nowhere near the scene. My recollection of the judges direction on law to the jury, said the expert witness was aware before getting into the witness box that some of her evidence was untenable.

MOJUK Comment: All in all the Crown Prosecution Service case against the defendants was put together with blue tack. The CPS opening statement was highly emotive with only one purpose to paint a picture of the defendants as a collection of thugs; on the streets that night with only one purpose to rob and loot and that they all conspired to murder the deceased.

However the diligence of the defence barristers and the defendants themselves, completely rubbished the CPS opening statement, rubbished so well that even the judge commented that the CPS opening statement that the defendants were out to rob and loot, was completely with out foundation.

All of the media have over the last 24 hours, concentrated their sympathies for the families of the deceased.


Not a word of sympathy for the families of the defendants who for the last eleven months have been torn apart by a seriously corrupt police investigation.


Once again non-disclosure raised its' ugly head, only this time it was not just non-disclosure by the police but to my mind the non-disclosure to the jury by the judge. The jury should at all times be in the presence of the judge, no legal arguments should be heard in their absence, no information given in court should be withheld from them.

Last but not least, congratulations to the jury for a quick and judicious decision.


Winston Green 8 - Murder Trial Update Monday 16th July 2012
 http://www.mojuk.org.uk/MOJUK2012/WinstonGreen8July.html

Winston Green 8 - Only 1 person drove the car 8 charged with murder
 http://www.mojuk.org.uk/MOJUK2012/WinstonGreen8.html