Jonathan King sends an Open Letter to Dame Vera Baird, acting Chair, CCRC

Dame Vera Baird, acting Chair, CCRC

Dear Dame Vera Baird,

I’m afraid I have to send this to you (with copies to your staff) as my previous correspondence has been dismissed, whether it had anything to do with my application or not.

Your Ref: XXXX 

As the temporary new head of the CCRC I suspect your brief and intention is to correct horrendous mistakes made by past executives. 

Such as Andrew Malkinson - 17 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, despite the Court of Appeal three judges stating that the CCRC should have referred his application to them, on Grounds 2 and 3, many years earlier. Such as the Post Office/Horizon scandal where the CCRC failed to do what others (including a TV company) eventually did. 

Such as - now - the Lucy Letby case.

• The CCRC in the past decided that the judge allowing the prosecution to change the dates on several charges in my indictment without allowing the defence a single second to investigate a possible alibi - was fair. They said the jury only cared WHETHER something happened and not WHEN. In a case involving the age of consent? When one of the claimed consensual, false accusers would have been over 16 if such an alibi was found (which it later was)?

• The handwritten date changes on the final indictment presented to the jury included a mistake, calling one false accuser 13 when he would have been 15 on the new, changed dates. Judges, not the CCRC, should decide whether or not this might have affected jury deliberations and whether the Judge should have corrected it.

• Actually the truth or accuracy of alibis is neither here nor there. The principle is wrong - or at least should be decided by judges - not by the CCRC.

• Failure by police to disclose vital evidence - the same as in the Malkinson decision - must surely automatically now mean a referral to the Court of Appeal. As Malkinson Grounds 2&3.

• Grossly inadequate representation by defence lawyers at trial - not demanding sight of vital evidence and as a result giving inadequate cross examination - must surely, again, be a decision for judges and not by the CCRC.

These fairly simple areas (there are a few others) cannot take more than a few hours for your case worker and commissioners to decide. Unless, in reality, you only want to protect the CCRC and avoid the judicial system from proper scrutiny, these cannot take 24 years to decide. These delays shatter trust in the system.

Public opinion has changed. Both government and the judiciary are no longer respected. Even the police are increasingly found to be lacking. I feel it is my duty to expose these failings to the public.

I insist, please, you contact Amanda Pearce, Kenny Smith and Tessa Hinder immediately and tell them to consider my application as a priority this month.

I was promised a decision in 2023, and subsequently, by the end of September 2025. As you know that has now been made 2026. I’m sorry, this is disgraceful and the fact that your staff is too busy even to accept further correspondence, such as this or any fresh evidence, is not only NOT an excuse but breaches the basic point and remit of the CCRC. I am now 80, about to be 81. The old CCRC hoped, I’m sure, that I’d die or at least go gaga before they had to refer it. This may happen any day now.

Best Wishes

Kenneth (Jonathan) King

Cc Pearce, Smith, Hinder

Bcc My lawyers and several media editors and members of Parliament.