Michael Ward responds to Dame Vera Baird's comment that applicants might restrict themselves to 10 points

Dame Vera Baird, interim Chair, CCRC

Dear Dame Vera

I understand that it would assist the CCRC if applicants restricted themselves to 10 points.

I have reapplied to the Commission in respect of two sets of convictions arising in two criminal trials, each trial dealing with different matters. What I refer to below as “the first case” concerns allegations of conspiracy to defraud in the course of a takeover bid. What I refer to as “the second case” concerns allegations that I lied to the SFO and procured a false receipt. 

The purpose of this email is to record the 10 points upon which I rely in respect of my first case and, separately, the 10 points upon which I rely in respect of my second case. 

You will see that of the points in each case, three (3) of them are points which straddle both cases equally. What makes these three points different to the others is that the facts supporting them are taken from both cases as if there had been a single case, not one case or the other.

Each of the points below are founded upon, either wholly or in part, evidence discovered since my one-and-only appeals to the Court of Appeal in 1997. Each of these points meet the admissibility requirements of the Court of Appeal. Insofar as certain arguments are, or may be, considered new, they are founded upon new evidence as defined and meet the admissibility requirements of the Court of Appeal.

MATTERS STRADDLING BOTH CASES RENDERING CONVICTIONS IN BOTH CASES UNSAFE

1. Abuse of process on the part of the State in triggering criminal proceedings for corrupt political reasons (Politicians/DTI/Mohamed Fayed and co-conspirators)

2. Abuse of process and/or gross prosecutorial misconduct on the part of the SFO across both cases

3. Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice/corruption of proceedings on the part of the Mail on Sunday across both cases

MATTERS RELATING ONLY TO THE FIRST CASE FURTHER RENDERING CONVICTION IN FIRST CASE UNSAFE

4. Perjury on part of prosecution witnesses, evidence of deliberate set up

5. Geoffrey Pearson (Fininvest)

6. Falsification of tape-recorded evidence

7. Non-disclosure

8. Trial judge’s Summing up, evidencing prejudice

9. Errors of law on part of trial judge

10. Errors of law on part of the Court of Appeal

MATTERS RELATING ONLY TO THE SECOND CASE FURTHER RENDERING CONVICTION IN SECOND CASE UNSAFE

4. Perjury on part of prosecution witnesses

5. Misrepresentations as to the true character and reliability of prosecution witnesses

6. Trial founded upon a deliberate “set up” 

7. Non-disclosure

8. Trial judge’s summing up

9. Errors of law on part of trial judge

10. Errors of law on part of the Court of Appeal

MATTERS FURTHER REINFORCING IMPORTANCE OF CONVICTIONS IN BOTH CASES BEING REFERRED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL UPON ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST GROUNDS

1. Gross misconduct on the part of the CCRC

2. Noble cause corruption as between the CCRC and the Judiciary

3. Serious failings on part of the Attorney General/AGO. 

Michael Ward