Statement in Support of Appeal

This document is supportive evidence of the enclosed appeal documentation. It will include all the aspects previously highlighted to the court with the addition of extended reference to material previously unseen as well as a full explanation as to reference of material that may have, previously, been seen as irrelevant.
It is my hope that this document will "pull together" the essence of my appeal and with doing so, the gravity of the points that I have raised and the absolute necessity of my case being heard in an honest and unbiased manner.
I will show that not only is there new evidence to bring true concern over my conviction but also, that should the trial have been managed in an appropriate manner, as is my entitlement by law, I believe that a not guilty verdict would have been recorded.
I have enclosed a number of documents for reference that are proof of the declarations I am making within this appeal application. It should be noted that the majority of this material is that of the prosecutions which I have only had access to recently, in most cases, within the last 6 months.
There are a number of issues that I will ask to be considered which, by themselves may have little impact on the views of the court but, when taking the collective argument, there is a plethora of details, facts and questions that add up to a much larger consideration. I believe that when viewing the whole of this statement and that of the evidence provided, in conjunction with the appeal points that I have sent to the court, it will become apparent that there is no possibility of seeing the conviction as safe
Within appeal point number 1, I have indicated and evidenced my concerns in regard to my inability to give evidence within my trial. One of the important factors of this point is that of the direct correlation to, Mr Cohan (the principle victim) and the persons I met within, Belmarsh Prison.
I already knew of Mr Chohans dealings in drug trafficking, as can be expected of me due to my previous convictions. However, I was not aware of the extent of his dealings or of the nature of those he had dealings with. I was aware that he also had direct association with, Mr Mike Parr and that they were involved in the importation and exportation of drugs namely, Khat and Cocaine.
As I have previously confirmed, until recently, I have felt unable to either prove the nature of these concerns or, in fact, discuss them due to the simple fact I was concerned for my own safety. I accept that in the eyes of many, this is not a conclusive reason behind not speaking out but the real issues surrounding the wider, and international voice where these matters have been raised has given me the ability to address these problems now with the aid of the enclosed articles and their relevance to the comments made within my trial by, Mr Navpreet Bopari (58).
At the time of my remand, certainly in the initial stages, I had a full expectation of going into the witness box and explaining my actions in relation to the disposal of Mr Chohans body, something that I have never denied. The facts surrounding this are based on the instructions I received from Mr Mike Parr. I had been asked to get rid of a body for him and I was left under no illusion that it wasn't really a request. I subsequently agreed to this and only knew that it was actually Mr Chohan when I arrived at the location nominated by Mr Parr. I had previously been present on the day Mr Chohan went missing when he had signed a Power of Attorney in favour of Mr Parr and Mr De Silva. This had come as a surprise to me as Mr Chohan had not given any indication to this before hand and the atmosphere was somewhat difficult throughout this meeting (1).
I accept that, by many this is not an acceptable action but I felt I had already agreed to get rid of a body so, in real terms; it did not make any difference whose it was. It was made clear to me that the body could not show up, so it was decided that the easiest way to confirm this was to bury him at a safe location.
This is the initial involvement I had with the crimes surrounding the death of Mr Chohan. Other than this, I later dug up the body, on the instruction of Mr Parr and placed the body into the van as detailed within the prosecution case statement. It can be confirmed that after extensive searching of the property, detailed by the prosecution as the place the murders were committed, there was not a shred of forensic evidence to tie the crimes to me or the property and it was written that said address was almost impossible, due to its size, to have been the location necessary for such an act (2). There is also the reality that during the trial, the jury was taken to this address and it was shown that even the those that had given testimony to the strength of them stating they had seen something, it was shown immediately this could not have been the case as the hedges and garden could not be accessed in the manner that they had stipulated and that if someone had been taken into the house they would have been observed by at least half a dozen witnesses due to its proximity.
It can also be said that the bodies of the other victims were examined for all manner of D.N.A. possibilities, including whether or not they had been buried and again there was nothing (3). Again I make the case that at no time has there ever been anything to link me to the deaths or disappearance of anyone except Mr Chohan and the reasoning for this is clear, it is because I was not involved. It would seem reasonable to suggest that as at least two other people were known to have been involved, (other than me and my co-accused) due to witness statements confirming their identities that they are also directly linked to the disappearance and death of the other victims. There is a worry that these lines of enquiry were basically ignored and, as I will detail later, this appears to be a constant in the negative policing in this case. I feel that in any investigation, it is surely the remit of the police involved, to carry out their duties to the fullest extent and this extends to investigating all possible avenues, not just those that satisfy the curiosity of the force who feel they know the answers before the questions have been asked. If this is taken into account with the recorded experiences of failed follow up explorations by the police throughout this case, it should be considered deplorable (66).
Once I was detained at the prison, on remand, I had contact with individuals who identified themselves to me as persons who knew Mr Chohan and knew of his drug dealing due to the monies involved and who such was for. It is impossible for someone to understand how frightening it is in a prison setting to be threatened to the extent that you consider your life is at risk, unless you have experienced it firsthand. The enclosed article does give the matter some insight but not to the daily battle you have with not knowing if the next turn around the corner is going to mean a cut across your throat or a face full of boiling oil. From this stage forward I had no intention of going into the witness box as it would have been detrimental to me and those around me.
Throughout the trial, it was confirmed by, Mr Bopari, that his uncle was "one of the biggest importers and exporters of the drug Khat in Africa". Mr Bopari was working directly with both, Mr Parr and Mr Chohan. Proof that this route was still active and operational can be found through police and media resources that confirm a further finding of drugs at, Spitterfields Market, in 2004, sent to "Akbar" (a known retailer at the market who had direct dealings with C.I.B.A.) inside plastic fruit.
I should now indicate the relevance of the drug importation/exportation within the case to show the importance of the connection I had with, Mr Mike Parr and why I felt the need to act as he wished in regards to the disposal of Mr Chohans body.
Mr Parr and I have known each other for about 18 years. We have had legitimate business dealings as well as illegal dealings such as an involvement in drug smuggling to the extent of, importation of heroin, cocaine and cannabis. In 1998 I was arrested and subsequently convicted of a major heroin importation. Mr Parr travelled with me to Holland, to meet the exporters and we had a further companion, Mr Michael Glass who is also a known criminal, involved with drugs and who was found guilty of dealing in £5,000,000.00 worth of heroin.
Mr Parr was arrested at the same time in regard to this offence and his solicitor was, Mr Lovell Chohan (the cousin of the principle victim in the murder conviction). Mr Lovell Chohan has represented Mr Parr on a whole manner of issues including the property, financial gains he received from the death of Mr Chohan. Mr Lovell Chohan was able to freeze the assets of the victim to aid Mr Parr so as to access such at a later date. He then was able to transfer the company to Mr Parr's wife whereby Mr Parr was able to direct the company's assets at his pleasure.
On a purely moral stance, what sort of person does it take to actively assist a known drug dealer and fraudster, when it is highlighted that the same individual is now a person of interest in the murder of your cousin and his whole family? Not only is the legal representative getting involved in matters that are unmistakably a conflict of interest but then he fails to register his significance to the situation with the appropriate bodies.
In 1998, Mr Parr by way of Mr Lovell Chohan made a statement to the effect that he was not involved in the drug situation. I made a deal with a police officer at the National Crime Squad, D.S. Keith Verrals to keep Mr Parr out of the court proceedings. The reasoning behind this was that they would leave Mr Parr to run "Superior Freight" which I had a 50% stake in. This would guarantee D.S. Verrals with a source of information and me with an income whilst I was in prison. The turnover at the time of this company was in the region of £5,000,000.00. At the time of this deal Mr Parr stated that he had a number of "funny customers" and after the shipment he identified had been searched it came about that cocaine with an estimated value of £2,000,000.00 was discovered, by Customs and Excise. Throughout this time I was aware of every aspect of Mr Parr's underhand dealings as was I believe Mr Lovell Chohan. It should be noted that Mr Lovell Chohan is not only the cousin of said principle victim and the solicitor of Mr Parr, but he is also a High Court Judge.
I have always had concerns about the weight Mr Lovell Chohan carries in a legal capacity due to a number of facts. He once took me to his chambers at Brentford High Court and at the time I considered this to be a bit of a veiled threat as I had a problem with Mr Parr that he wanted resolved. Also, I was made aware of the fact that despite the obvious, conflict of interest throughout the whole of the issues surrounding the financial aspects of C.I.B.A. Freight, after the death of Mr Chohan, Mr Lovell Chohan declared nothing to the relevant authorities and it was intimated that this was due to direct involvement with the murder and the financial gains associated with such.
Mr Lovell Chohan made a statement to the police (4) where he says, he did not know of his cousins disappearance until he read about it in the newspapers. I do not believe that even at face value this can be considered credible. Within the 'document record print' (5) Mr L. Chohan confirms he has been Mr Parr's solicitor for more than 10 years and that he is working for him in regard to C.I.B.A. He also reiterates he is the first cousin to the deceased. I believe that a client, Mr Parr, would have contacted their solicitor, Mr L. Chohan, when they were taking over control of a company which had major implications to their finances and livelihood. Especially as the person who owned said company was your solicitor's cousin.
Furthermore, when reading 'Raj's' statement concerning Mr Lovell's meeting at C.I.B.A. on 19/02/2003 (6) what are we expected to believe the conversation was about? Surely the fact that Mr Parr had spoken to the C.I.B.A. employees and informed them that he was taking over the company cropped up at some stage? The fact that the owner of the company had not been heard of since the 13th after a telephone call would have been something I felt worthy of conversation. Why else would a client require their solicitor present at work? Mr L. Chohan says he did not get on with his cousin because of the conflict it had on his legal profession. Yet he acts for Mr Parr who is known to be involved in all manner of illegal activities and, if he is to be believed, he also socializes with him at his place of work. The credibility of this solicitor is, at best, questionable. I suggest he knew all about his cousin's disappearance and his client's intent to take over C.I.B.A. I further submit that he was giving instructions as to the legalities of this take over otherwise, why employ a solicitor? There is an old adage, "you don't buy a dog and bark yourself".
I have also found out recently that Mr Lovell Chohan persuaded Mr Parr to lie to the police in relation to his knowledge about me (7). Mr Parr was questioned by the police about me and he said he had very little knowledge of me and that I had turned up at C.I.B.A. as a friend of Mr Chohans (8).
I did feel a loyalty to Mr Mike Parr due to our previous involvement as, when I was imprisoned in 1998, he did make sure I had what I needed. When I learned that the body was that of Mr Chohan, I pieced together quickly the reasoning behind his murder and was left in a quandary as to what to do. Mr Parr assured me I would not be implicated but now, I believe I was set up to be the principle suspect and feel that the whole truth is the only tool available to me to ensure a full review of this crime that I was wrongly convicted for.
Further indications of other, outside involvement in this offence include:

  • Another aspect to this investigation that should have been looked at more closely is the amount of times separate individuals gave evidence to the police, which pointed at Mr Parr being the perpetrator of the said offences. This includes Mr Damien Nugent who openly voices his fears of what Mr Parr had done to the Chohan family and his anger is clear when he believes it possible that he also killed the children (13). Mr Nugent states that there was a wealth of information on Mike Parr's home and office computer but that some of it may have been wiped off. It is not difficult to retrieve information from a hard drive even if there has been an attempt to delete it. I would like to know whether the police ever attempted to access this data or if this was just something else that they decided was not relevant?

  • The above is a flavour of the issues that I consider imperative in an open and honest investigation but I feel were woefully dealt with and in many circumstances left as answered questions that would have changed the outcome of the trial. Throughout this statement I will show a wealth of concerns surrounding the inadequate investigating. I will also indicate and prove that should the proper procedures have been implemented then the evidence would not have been manipulated to show something that clearly did not exist.
    There was 'finger pointing' to suggest that I killed the Chohan family for gain. What did I gain or stand to gain? All the property and business areas were put into the names of either, Mr Parr or his wife. As is seen by enclosed disclosures, workers at C.I.B.A. friends of Mr Chohan and members of his family knew nothing of the details of such a business deal with Mr Parr. There was also records, that the police obtained, that proved Mr Parr was likely to have been sacked by Mr Chohan as he was not happy with him and his brother-in-law due to the fact money was being stolen from the company (26).
    Mr Parr, along with Mr Lovell Chohan went to the High Court in London and fabricated testimonies to obtain access to the deceased's assets by way of power of attorney. He stated that DCI McKinlay was happy about the arrangement he was proposing but when this officer was questioned about such he confirmed this was not true (27). It is clear that Mr Parr and his solicitor were willing to go to any lengths to ensure their control of the property and businesses owned by the late Mr Chohan. Furthermore, there were voiced concerns emanating throughout the investigation that Mr Chohan had got himself in trouble because of Mr Parr. This caused him severe distress as was shown by statements within police and prosecution evidence that was never really tackled in the manner in which would seem appropriate.

  • Within the action print (30) Mr Parr was proven to be at the house of Mr Chohan and when challenged about such, he repeatedly asked them not to mention the police anything about his being there. Why would this be a concern to anyone if they had nothing to hide? At the time Mr Chohan was apparently missing not dead, I suggest that at the time Mr Parr was getting rid of evidence, that implicated him to the problems Mr Chohan had confirmed to others, and the reason he had to make sure it was done straight away was because he knew Mr Chohan was dead. An issue in regard to this can be seen when reading the statements from the C.I.B.A. workforce who confirm that Mr Parr called them together and said he would be taking over the running of the company. This gathering took place 11 hours after the last known phone call to C.I.B.A. from Mr Chohan. What prompted Mr Parr?s actions at this stage? He hadn't even been deemed as missing so to take such a course of this magnitude seems bizarre unless of course you already know this person is not going to be around to argue the point.
    An aspect of this situation that I find confusing as well as questionable by law is that of the confliction regarding Mr Parr?s ability to have the Power of Attorney 16/02/2003 deemed as valid and the judge's comments (page 4, "sentencing remarks") stating that this document was written under duress (31). Surely, if a document is seen as unlawful by one hand it cannot be seen as legal and appropriate by the other? There is also the measure of what is seen as apposite within the given circumstances. I have already added my concerns in regard to Mr Parr?s takeover of C.I.B.A. but, moreover, I suspect there were others with similar trepidations at the time.
    If, as was recorded, this crime was based on financial gain then I point again to the facts surrounding the sole beneficiary, Mr Parr. Furthermore, it would appear he was assisted in this endeavour by the police and prosecution who failed woefully, in challenging the due lawful process of court issues in respect to C.I.B.A. and associated monies and properties. Mr Parr was given carte blanche to move himself into a position within a company where the owner had previously confirmed he was not a desirable character, and the reason for this dramatic change was the disappearance and subsequent murder of said owner.
    Mr Parr was at the time, and is now, involved in drug importation/exportation. The 2 "Acton Prints" (32) clearly show class A drugs going in and out of C.I.B.A. and it was Mr Parr who instructed that these packages not to be checked. And what did the police do about these revelations? Nothing. Mr Parr was left to carry out his illegal activities, with the help of his solicitor, Mr Lovell Chohan and remarkably, he was further allowed to hold the bonded warehouse certificate that guarantees his ability to export drugs to countries such as the U.S.A. Even if this case did not involve 5 murders and the properties and businesses of the principle victim, I suggest that the police should have been investigating Mr Parr?s involvement in these activities and further questioning who was assisting these people in such a multi-million pound enterprise.
    In J. Grover's statement (24/33) page 151 and Jasinder Singhs (25/34) pages 104-105 it is further apparent that family members and persons working at C.I.B.A. had very serious issues with Mr Parr due to direct testimony from Mr Chohan. This is a man who was frightened and wanted rid of Mr Parr at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, Mr Parr got rid of him first, permanently.
    It is my contention that the prosecution had a fixed idea that, due to my criminal past, I was the person who carried out these horrendous crimes and by that thinking, were not prepared to look in any other direction. This I will also show when addressing the points raised over Mr Bopari and the fact he was afforded immunity in what can only be described as, an inexplicable measure to gain a testimony from him with no thought as to whether such was in the public interest.
    Throughout appeal point number 2 and not withstanding previously submitted comments, there is a worrying aspect to this factor of my trial that gives rise to an unfair hearing based on contempt of court and conspiracy to commit contempt of court. There is also the almost unquestionable point of allowing evidence to be submitted, that is known to be false at the time of the case and that was only used to show previous bad character and to direct the jury?s view of the issues in a false direction.
    It is my understanding that anyone given immunity and later appears in court to give evidence, must, as everyone, tell the truth. Failing to do so, should mean that said immunity becomes void by way of dissolvement. It is apparent by police witness statements as well as their own interview reports, that Mr Bopari lied to them throughout interviews and within the setting of the court on a regular basis. The evidence to support such that I have accumulated over the last 6 months shows a worrying element to the way in which this witness was handled.
    During one interview Mr Bopari answers a question regarding the number plate on a car that the police officer knows is falsehood yet he goes on without raising this as an issue (35). The relevance of this is that Mr Bopari was and is involved in the illegal importation/exportation of millions of pounds worth of drugs. He was allowed to have this kept from the courts attention due to the immunity and also lie to the jury in regard to the income he had. Significantly, it is Mr Bopari who says he is concerned for his safety and will not talk about Mr Parr and his involvement in the murders until Mr Parr has been arrested. Why this is so damaging is that both Mr Parr and Mr Bopari worked together in the drug business to a high level yet, it is Mr Bopari, with a huge portfolio of cars and property that is worried about what Mr Parr would have done to him.
    Both Mr Parr and Mr Bopari told the court and the police that their involvement in drugs was limited yet, by the statement written by C.I.B.A. employee Mr Patel, this is clearly an utter fabrication (57). My question surrounding this is, why did the prosecution/police decide not to take this any further and why continue to allow an immunity order to someone so deep in major drug dealing? The only logical answer is that they were more concerned with seeing what could be used against me and my co-accused than to face the reality of truth.
    It cannot be said that the evidence of Mr Bopari's illegal activities was hidden; he couldn't have been any more flamboyant if he'd worn one of the cars he owned around his neck as a medallion. In replying to questions regarding his amazing wealth he stated he worked for the Kuwaiti Royal family even arranging abortions for then when one of them got into trouble. He also stated that he was given £200m by one of the princes to invest in property. By this are we to assume that the Kuwaiti Royal family has no option in the property world other than to trust a young, known criminal with no qualifications or specific acumen in the field of property development? The ludicrousness of this statement is just about as spectacular as the police not taking this any further, not questioning such, not talking to the Kuwaiti Royal family, and just deciding to move forward with an investigation that was plainly flawed. This is not and, as far as I am aware, never has been the correct procedure in any investigation never mind one of this gravity.
    What I would consider to be right and fitting to this case would be the questioning of the Ambassador to London for the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Firstly this would clear the name of said Royal Family of any illegal or reproachable activities and secondly, it will show the true financial areas of Mr Bopari's life and to what they pertain to.
    As I have confirmed within my previously submitted representations, under my Human Rights, I should have been allowed to question my accusers. Mr Bopari made allegations under oath that have proven to be false and malicious yet I was denied the opportunity to question this witness because of the ill-afforded immunity. This is an obvious breach of policy, whether under the, Human Rights or, British Judicial procedure.
    In addressing this issue I would also like to raise the point of conduct on the parts of the prosecution and the judge. It would be ridiculous to suggest that they did not review this material and have questions regarding such. I therefore submit that once these false statements had been made by Mr Bopari and realised by those assessing the prosecution material, said material should have been omitted and the immunity should have been lifted. Or was it the case that the actual deal was Mr Bopari would give any evidence that the prosecution wanted, he would also be exempt from prosecution for the illegal activities he involved himself in and he was to keep Mr Parr's name out of the proceedings?
    This may seem far-fetched however; when considering (12 para. 20) it is evident that information in relation to the money/dealings Mr Bopari was involved in was suppressed. There can be limited reasoning behind this behaviour so will not add my opinion to such as I am sure it will be seen as somewhat biased in light of my application. The question of suppression though can be seen in many guises and within this matter there is an element which I believe pertinent for review. I consider that throughout the investigation and the subsequent trial, witnesses were used as a tool for the prosecution that cannot be deemed appropriate or legal.
    Appeal point number 3 is written in what could be termed as "loose". However, the true implications of these damning events only come to the fore when seeing the problem in its entirety and the adding the relevance to such as a collective argument.
    I will start with Ms Wendy Powles. It has been shown that both the prosecution and the judge knew that she was giving false testimony during and before she was called into the witness box. In my eyes this is both contempt of court and conspiracy to commit contempt of court. This is in no way said lightly. Ms Powles gave evidence to suggest I shot the 5 members of the Chohan family. Notwithstanding the fact that none of the victims were found with gunshot wounds, there is the very real and disturbing issue regarding the knowledge of Gloucester police, giving confirmation that she had been tape recorded at their police station (with the help of her then boyfriend) admitting that she had made this up to aid and assist her friend, Peter Rees (one of my co-defendants).
    Where I believe this becomes more damaging than the libel committed by Ms Powles, is when the motive of those who knew of such is considered. It can only be thought of as a deliberate attempt to give the jury a false impression of me and my co-defendants by issuing to them a list of false details that would give an impression of a heartless murderer. The major problem with this is, if the prosecution had to resort to such underhandedness and the judge himself refused to address these illegal activities, what else was done that has not come to light and how much of a bearing did this have on the views and perceptions of the jury?
    Under the same banner as the above, there is the scurrilous use of the witness, Mr Eric Daniels. Throughout my years as a criminal I have never known or heard of such an abuse of position as that in relation to the prosecutions manipulation of the evidence gleaned from this witness. The tactics employed to knowingly introduce false and malicious information into the court is not something I would have expected in a British court room.
    As I have shown by previously introduced material, the police, the prosecution, the probation service and the judge were fully aware at the time of the trial that the evidence being voiced was akin to a fairy story. The reason this wasn?t challenged by the judge et al? Because it brought in my previous convictions of drug dealing which, I fully admit is shocking. By such an introduction I was seen as having a reason for the murders, and the preposterous suggestion that I had sought the assistance of this witness to commit criminal activities added weight to an already biased prosecution evaluation. Once again, it does not take Stephen Hawkins to work out the reasoning behind the omission to the jury that this witness was an unmitigated liar, he served a purpose and hence his introduction to a captive audience like a rabbit out of a magicians hat.
    Mr Navpreet Bopari. It is difficult to know where to start. A known criminal, a drug dealer a money launderer, someone who he himself admitted has connections with those involved in terrorist activities and someone the police caught out on a number of occasions lying to them as fluently as running water. Yet, he was afforded immunity, which certainly was not in the public interest, and brought into court to entertain the troops. On one specific occasion during the trial he decided to prove his involvement in the Khat business by bringing some of the drug into court. This surely did prove he had access to the drug but what was not given an airing was the extent of his dealings in activities far more serious.
    Mr Patel, a worker at C.I.B.A. admits to seeing Mr Parr and Mr Bopari handling, " 60-65 kilo of cocaine". By my estimation this is around £6,500,000.00 on the street. Is this in the public interest? Is the fact that a twenty-something year old criminal was driving around in a fleet of cars including, 2 Lamborghinis, a Ferrari, a Mercedes and others as well as owning 2 luxury properties a concern? The police and prosecution didn't think so and failed to examine any of his assertions as to where the money came from. This also seems to fit with the statement by DC Whitehead in regard to a witness, Mr O?Brien, who saw Mr Parr with shipments leaving C.I.B.A. which he was instructed not to touch. Without doubt this was another large shipment of drugs. I am fully aware of the packaging process and routes used and as these were going to the U.S.A. on El Italia, it means Mr Parr was exporting over 50kg of cocaine (36).Was that in the public interest? An immunity order is based on the need for public interest so, in what universe has this criteria been met in this scenario?
  • ACTION RECORD PRINT 17/04/2003 (37).

  • Mr Bopari had to be given immunity or he could never have walked into a British court, unless he was named as the accused. His statement regarding Mr Parr's direct involvement in the murders was hidden from the jury, his illegal antics were blanketed under the umbrella of immunity and any questions regarding his history was given the same convenient treatment. I suggest that Mr Bopari knew exactly what really happened in the murders of the Chohan family and was either persuaded or allowed to keep quiet regarding such.
    Further concerns surrounding the way in which the jury were misled by the prosecution and the judge revolve around the principle victim, Mr Chohan. It was said that he was an upstanding citizen with no criminal record and a pillar of society. It has now come to light, due to evidence I have received and enclosed, that he was in fact a convicted criminal, fraudster and of dubious character. The relevance to this is that a portrayal of an individual to a jury goes a long way in painting a picture. If an honest upstanding individual is murdered, it is perceived differently to that of a murder of a drug dealer.
    Was it questioned as to how Mr Chohan went from being in prison for 3 years for offences of fraud, obtaining property by deception and making false statements, to someone worth millions of pounds and having the ability to obtain a licence for a bonded warehouse? It is observed that Mr Chohan bought 5 properties in the space of 5 months! (38). This is not normal in anyone's viewpoint. As well as this outlay Mr Chohan was also paying large sums of money into the account of his ex-wife by direct debit. If it may be assumed that these expenditures were due to illegal activities as detailed above and within the documents provided by the prosecution, then I think it highly likely that he upset a number of people, especially if he couldn't or didn't repay the money he had borrowed on the strength of his abilities with a company able to bring in and ship drugs.
    The latter in itself should raise more than the odd eyebrow as with this item security is a priority due to materials coming in and out of the country and being sent to other sensitive areas of the world. Part of the answers are addressed within, "unused material 20/09/04 Barnes Police Station" (39). Point 18 indicates the fact that Mr Chohan had met other criminals within the prison and they had sponsored him into the drug world. The immediate reservation I would have with this fact is, why did the relevant authorities not see this person as a risk because of his past? Also, why was it deemed as unimportant as a factor within the trial that surely would have shed a different light on the proceedings?
    It is also confirmed that Mr Chohan had problems with his finances and had got into deals that were over his head. If the jury had been told of these matters their view of him and the people he was involved with would clearly have been different. The suppression of these facts, I believe, altered the course of the trial and I could not have had a fair hearing due to the manner of the representations of individuals, as highlighted above.

  • I have only had access to this material for a few months but the prosecution had it within their hands since before the trial. Why I consider this as pertinent as I have said is, the jury, were given information about this man as I have intimated above. The papers were portraying Mr Chohan as I have stated and it would have been impossible for the jury not to have had knowledge of this type of reporting due to the gravity of the offence and the coverage it warranted. However, where the prosecution or judge should have identified the true side of Mr Chohans dealings with criminal activity, to ensure an unbiased view of the circumstances, they said nothing and by doing so did not disclose evidence that could have been vital to the proceedings (44).

  • It is my understanding that to have a fair trial, all the relevant evidence should be made available and heard within the confines of the court and the jury are then in place to have a true assessment of the events in question. This did not happen. I have been obtaining evidence to prove this statement and have already addressed some of these issues and supplied paperwork to support such. There is, as I will show, much more to emphasise these areas of misconduct but I would hope that even by now it would appear obvious that judicial protocol has not been met.
    When considering the report by Mr Wigley, it becomes evident that Mr Chohan had a plethora of financial irregularities to his name and the company was in some difficulty due to the money he had siphoned off. It has to been seen as relevant that someone with such huge financial problems, might have made enemies in the business world, drug world or through those he owed money to and as such, might have been murdered for those reasons alone. The fact that this was stated by persons who the police took statements from but did not disclose, indicates to me that they themselves had the same ideas but were loathe to act upon as it would have steered them in a direction away from me as the principle suspect.
    Appeal point number 4 is based on the singular piece of physical evidence in the case and without doubt it is the most controversial element to this case bar none. This is the mysterious, "letter in the sock". I will talk about the mass of problems with this at length but I want to start with the evidence that I have obtained in the past 6 months by way of paperwork, that has been provided by a number of sources, including the police, the C.P.S. and a number of solicitors and barristers associated with me or my co-defendants. The following has not been seen by me previously or by my co-accused and, should it have been identified at the time of my trial it would have been a major factor in the case. The documents in question are so damaging that I propose, should the prosecution have seen such and realised the potential they held, the documents would have ceased to exist.
    I will start with the fact that the senior investigator in the F.S.S. deliberately and with intent, falsified statements and colluded with her colleagues to present inaccurate and libellous details to the court (45). It is fortunate that the statements provided to the court are hand written and not typed as this shows the gravity of this offence. Should they have been typed the corruption and inappropriateness of those involved would have been lost. I have other concerns in regard to other statements, that I have been unable to access, such as, any of those written by, Rosalind Winter, when she reviewed the "letter in the sock" as detailed within the police schedule of unused material (46) that I was given 12 weeks ago. As there is no record of what she had to say, I am assuming that it did not fit with what the prosecution wanted from her. I would go as far to say, that I believe her statement quite possibly, confirms aspects of this evidence that proves the doubt of it existing at the time the prosecution state.

    I have had it confirmed, not that I needed to as it is glaringly obvious, that all three statements were written by Ms Claire Austin. She then had the other two scientists pen their names to the relevant documents to state they themselves had written such, which is clearly not true. Furthermore, Ms Austin then had the audacity to witness these statements as though she had seen these being written by those purporting to have done so by their signatures. This is clearly a breach of practice, unprofessional conduct, libel, collusion, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and in fact, perverting the course of justice. It is a sad indictment of the system when it becomes clear how badly the prosecution and F.S.S. wanted to pin this crime on me when they introduce tactics that are more in line with a Third World judicial system.
    The Forensic Science Service are an organisation to exact truth, fact and specifics from a given area or identified piece of evidence. If a small wrap of drugs was found at a crime scene, the F.S.S. could say how much it weighed and what quantity of whatever drug it was they found. Taking this into consideration I would now like to review the items listed within this document as (47). I am talking about the photograph, with added comments by Ms Ursula Collins and the statement from Ms Claire Austin. We see the "letter in the sock" being identified as, firstly, a "pale blue piece of paper" and within the following statement it is said to be ?a white piece of paper?. This is ridiculous. This is the only physical piece of evidence in this case and the F.S.S. cannot even confirm what colour the letter actually is.

  • These pieces of evidence came to me in the last 6 months along with a number of other documents that I had never seen before. When the realization of what I was looking at became apparent, I sat for quite a period of time both elated and furious. At last, here was the proof I knew had to be out there to show the underhandedness within this case. I knew from the very start that this letter could not possibly have existed as; Mr Chohan had not been at my father's house. This means that he could not have had access to any letter that had been sent to that property and he certainly could not have secreted such in his sock. The mistakes made by the F.S.S. were due to the fact they were writing about items and circumstances that; they did not have access to and that they were talking about rather than viewing.
    It is worthy of note that I have successfully challenged the F.S.S. through the county court for their inappropriate behaviour and the misconduct entailed. I asked pertinent questions which they failed to respond to and on occasions refused to answer. I have also submitted paperwork for a High Court action against Ms Claire Austin due to her personal inappropriateness, her breech of protocol and policy as well as the falsification of evidence by way of statement manipulation (48).
    There is a wealth of supporting evidence that supports these concerns and I will aim to identify these as I continue with this point. Firstly, this is not the only piece of paper that was found with the victim, Mr Chohan. A paper receipt with the word "Repassage" was found and it was confirmed by the F.S.S. that this was in fact the French word for "ironing" (49). This was a small piece of paper about 14mm x 8mm. The significance of this is that the folded letter that the F.S.S. claim was found in the sock, by the reckoning of the amount of times it was purported to have been folded, would have been approximately 80mm x 50 mm and some 5-8mm thick. Now take into account the number of people who handled the sock in question including those, picking it up, drying it, preparing it for being photographed, placing it into evidence bags, taking it off of the victims foot etc. How can it be possible for all these professional people to have missed something so important and so damaging to a major murder investigation? The answer is simple, they didn't miss it. It was never there (50).
    If further proof of this conclusion is needed then I ask that the evidence produced from the post mortem be reviewed. On page 130 (prosecution material) it is shown that the examination of Mr Chohan was filmed. If this is the case then any marks on the body would be visible. There would also be absolute proof in the way in which the socks were taken off of the body. It has been said this was done in a way which prevented, or possibly prevented, the letter being found. I suggest that due to this revelation this recording should be viewed and used in consideration of my attempts at justice. I believe it is now without question that should the letter have existed as is stated by the prosecution, then a mark would have been left on the area of the foot. Also, within this same document there is an abundance of evidence to suggest this letter could not have existed as the persons handling the clothing confirmed it was checked, searched and identified. This includes the sock in question on a multitude of occasions.


  • Let me look at when the letter was actually identified as such. Ms Claire Austin attended a meeting with the police who accepted that without some kind of physical evidence, I could not be linked directly to the murder of Mr Chohan. Surprisingly, the letter in question was then "found" under the direction of Ms Austin and those she was writing statements for. This is not the only anomaly to arise from this incident and once again the professionalism and conduct of the F.S.S. has to be brought into doubt.
    The murder of Mr Chohan and the subsequent investigation was seemingly paramount to those detailed within the paperwork submitted by the Crown and, rightly so. However if the small piece of paper identified as being in French could be properly afforded its apparent importance to the victim or situation, why would it be considered as appropriate to put the piece of paper, detailed later as the "letter in the sock" back in the same evidence bag, without looking at it, for 8 months (51)? This is clearly not proper practice. It is not a professional stance to gain insight into a criminal investigation. So, what is it? The sock had previously been tested for D.N.A. and 2 small stones had been found and a couple of hairs but, not a folded piece of A4 paper. So is it sheer ineptitude and negligence on the part of the F.S.S. and every other person who had access to this piece of evidence? No, clearly not. The sock obviously had no piece of paper within it until it was situated at Lambeth Forensic Services. What happened within that building exactly will probably never be known but I can make a hypothesis based on logic.

    Without this "letter" the prosecution had no case in a murder investigation of high profile. Ms Austin was called onto a meeting where this was emphasised (52). Ms Austin had already been to my father's address, throughout the searching of the property to ascertain if there was any forensic evidence that showed whether Mr Chohan had been at the house, and there had been none. To bring this into context, this searching wasn"t a quick look in the cupboards and underneath the beds, this was 42 days of searching by all manner of associated persons whereby the floor was examined back to the concrete, wallpaper was taken off and paint stripped until the brickwork was visible. Not a hair, a drop of blood or sweat was found to say Mr Chohan had been there because he hadn"t been.

  • The judge, Sir Stephen Mitchell Q.C. remarked on the letter as being something that "Mr Chohan must have realised that the Metropolitan Police investigation would have been so inept, that he sent a damning message from the grave". I would say that the Metropolitan Police were so inept in investigating the correct people in the case that they had to rely on the services of corrupt members of the F.S.S. to put in place evidence that warranted enough potential to guarantee a conviction.
    If we consider the possibility of Mr Chohan having the ability to obtain the letter in the first place then we also have questions that appear to be unanswerable. The prosecution, and F.S.S. state that Mr Chohan was taped up prior to being killed and yet they also intimate that he was able to go through the contents of a house, where there is no evidence he ever was, and obtain a letter that he hid in his sock rather than use a telephone or call to neighbours or make any kind of noise that may raise the concerns of those able to hear such.
    If Mr Chohan was able to see a letter and pick it up he would have been able to see, according to the prosecution, that he was in a small property surrounded by other houses and that even a broken window would have had half a dozen people enquiring as to what was going on within minutes. But no, the police and prosecution would have everyone believe that his first thought would have been to hide a letter in his sock.
    I suggest that if Mr Chohan had of been in this predicament and he truly believed he was in danger he would have done a lot more than hobble around a house, apparently silently, and decide that his best course of action would be to read a letter, to ensure it had enough details on it to point the finger in the right direction and then put it in a place that he had no idea if it would ever be seen.
    The fact that in a close knit community, where the curtain twitches if someone coughs too loudly, nobody saw or heard anything. I would have thought it a matter of fact that if someone had extracted an unwilling person from a vehicle, hauled them into a small house in the middle of a built up area that is over looked in all directions, that somebody would have seen or heard the like and questioned what was going on (2).

  • Another aspect of this I would like to raise is that of the condition of Mr Chohans body and the proof of such by the post mortem evidence as submitted by relevant parties. If the letter in question had been present for the time indicated by the prosecution, there would have been a discernable mark on the area identified. There was none. The only answer to this enigma is that the letter could not have been present at the time the body was taken from the sea, so could not have been there at the time of his initial burial and therefore could not have been there at the time the prosecution state (50).

  • As previously indicated the only time that this letter could have logically have existed is after the sock had reached Lambeth F.S.S. If any further doubt over this matter still exists then maybe the remarks from the pathologist should be reviewed where he says to the court, "I do not believe I could have missed this item". Here we have an honest man who knows he has done his job correctly and identified the factors of the case appropriately which certainly means, no folded piece of paper that later is said to be a typed letter from a building society. If it is considered that a man of such regard could possibly miss such an important item of evidence in a case of this magnitude then surely every case this man has ever handled would be under review?
    The comments made by the pathologist gave me cause to consider the probability of such a mistake being made and the likelihood of this evidence being missed at the time that the body was undressed. Although not under laboratory conditions I have initiated and facilitated a number of basic experiments to evaluate this issue.
    It is stated within the prosecution records that the sock was wet when it was taken off Mr Chohan and that it was then placed in a drying cabinet for a considerable period of time. It is also attested to that the letter, supposedly within said sock, was missed. In total, between 6 different people, we have conducted 84 tests based on the exact recollection of those making statements at the time of the events in question. These tests have been carried out over a number of weeks and with several of the people not knowing what they were supposed to be doing or why they were doing it.
    I made sure that on each occasion the sock and foot was wet. I made an attempt to experiment on the possibility of different salt levels to account for the varying amounts found within sea water, and I left the sock/foot in the water for different periods of time. I then asked different people to; a) take off the sock and place it to one side; b) put the sock in a position whereby it could be photographed in flat state. I also used dissimilar pieces of A4 paper to allow for altering porous levels that could cause diverse conditions on the skin of the foot and how much or little the paper may stick to such.
    On every single occasion the piece of paper was found. When the sock was taken off so carefully that it came off almost flat, the paper adhered to the foot. When the sock was removed in what I might consider to be normal circumstances, the paper either stuck to the foot, fell out onto the floor or was so obvious because of its bulk, that it was spotted immediately. I am the first to accept that this is not the conditions one might find within the F.S.S. laboratories however, I nor those who have assisted me, have missed such a large piece of paper that had been secreted in a sock. This will probably not be seen as empirical evidence but what I do think it proves beyond the obvious, is that the pathologist was a man of integrity and the reason he did not record this manufactured evidence is that it was not there at the time he viewed either the clothing or the body of Mr Chohan.
    As an aside, if the F.S.S. had done the job correctly as should be expected, why after such a long period of time and straight after the meeting with the police, would a young girl be appointed the job of re-evaluating a sock that had already been entered into evidence after being D.N.A. tested, photographed and afforded an appropriate evidence number? Were the trousers brought back out of the evidence bags? Was the other sock taken back out to check for any sign of a telephone directory? No. A single sock was taken back out by an inexperienced member of the F.S.S. team and miraculously, the most significant piece of evidence to tie together the whole case was found.
    Due to the amount of unexplained discrepancies with this piece of evidence I believe it should be deemed as inadmissible. It is quite obviously unsafe within the lawful remit of evidence produced for the benefit of a fair trial and as such, should not be available for use. By this measure it is then fair to say that the case is unsafe as there is then nothing to link me to any offence, other than what I have already admitted, that being, responsible for the hindering of a lawful burial and the handling of a dead body.
    As appeal point number 5 shows, Ms Powles was brought into court with the knowledge, by the prosecution and the judge that she was committing contempt of court by lying. This fact is supported by, Gloucester police and as such they can be asked to provide the tape they have regarding the conversation she had with her boyfriend which was being recorded at the police station. When I became aware of this fact and that nothing had been done to challenge this, I decided to take civil action against Ms Powles for "Defamation" and she refused to respond and hence, I was awarded judgement (53).

  • Ms Powles deliberately came into court and gave false testimony against me and I believe, she was coerced into doing so by the police and prosecution so as to bring in my character and previous convictions (this is also true with other witnesses including, Mr Eric Daniels and Mr Dalgety).
    What I find more concerning than the perjury committed by Ms Powles is the underhandedness of the prosecution in their failure to inform the jury that they were aware of her lies. I understand that under "disclosure" it is the duty of the court, prosecution, judge to ensure all the evidence is heard correctly so that the jury can make an unbiased opinion and decision based on such. If this witness was allowed into the court setting to tell stories that supported the requirements of the prosecution then they themselves have misled the jury and should be, by the letter of the law, held in contempt of court.
    To put this further into context, if I or one of my co-defendants had introduced a witness that was blatantly lying and the prosecution was aware of it, they would, without doubt have made the court conscious of such. They would have made the proverbial song and dance about trying to mislead the court and falsifying evidence and again they would have made me look like the ogre that they were already portraying.
    If there is any question as to whether the prosecution were aware of these allegations then I ask the court to review (54).

  • The police seized the tapes from her home phone that proved she was about to "lie on oath". If the prosecution was acting within the law, why was Ms Powles ever allowed to enter court? Why was she not challenged about her conduct and behaviour? Why was she not charged with wasting police time? Or some other offence pertinent to the allegations she was making that were clearly not true?
    The answer is simple, it was not in the interest of the prosecution to lose a witness who was willing to sling dirt in any direction when their case was already based on supposition, inaccuracies, false allegations and physical evidence that had to be manufactured for any trial to have come about in the first place.
    Appeal point number 6 again shows how far the police and prosecution were willing to go in formulating a case against me, as Mr Dalgety was pressurized by the police to speak against me even though his statements were known to be inaccurate (55). It is also accepted that during the trial Mr Dalgety was taken ill and whilst on a break he admitted to the court nurse that he was hearing voices to kill people. This was hidden from the court and the jury. As previously indicated, this is clearly conspiracy to commit contempt of court and, contempt of court as well as perverting the course of justice. I have shown that in the end, Mr Dalgety did not know what to say as the police had gotten him to change his story so many times. I believe it to be immaterial that the evidence he gave was weak and not overly damaging, it is the fact that the prosecution felt the need to do this and acted in the manner that they did to assist them in obtaining a conviction.

  • If it is shown at any time that someone within a major trial gave false evidence then it would be considered appropriate to assess their testimony and the relevance of such within the case and decide on whether this would make the case unsafe. In my trial I have indicated and proven that not only were there multiple offences of perjury and contempt of court there is also the undeniable fact that on many occasion the police were identifying these people as unsafe witnesses prior to them entering the court yet, the prosecution in their determination to have me convicted allowed this illegal activity to convince the jury there was no other possibility of anyone else being capable of these murders.
    This in itself is a criminal offence but, by misleading the jury to such an extent, the prosecution also hid specific facts from the court that could well have led to the real perpetrators being charged and convicted for this horrific series of events. I do not feel or believe it acceptable that any prosecution body should work outside of the law under any circumstance but certainly within this case I find their grievous, manipulative behaviour to be so damaging that it is needs direct attention. If this was common practice and therefore suitable and acceptable there would never be an honest trial in the British Judicial system. Facts would not need to be presented, a series of stories may as well be told around the camp fire. Witnesses could be anyone who had come across any part of the previously told story and the jury may as well be replaced by a set of dice that can be rolled at the end of the "trial" to determine guilt or innocence.
    Police and prosecution ineptness and corruption is not new nor is the fact that they are prone to exaggerate statements and the evidence before them. Recently, it was once again brought to the public's attention by, The Mail and Mail on Sunday (56). It was reported that the police would not be trusted if they continued to "... cheat, dissemble and fiddle with evidence ..." and this is quoted from a former DPP. The police, on the occasion being discussed, had made up a string of untruths in regard to an M.P. and a heated argument with one of their officers. My point in concern with this is, if they can lie and advise the press of non-existent abuse about a serving Member of Parliament, what chance does a known criminal have of exacting justice or the truth in a case where both the police and prosecution were working hand in glove to prove, by any means available to them, that they were responsible for multiple murder.
    Throughout appeal point number 7 I have addressed the issues under the banner of "Human Rights" and here I will show how damaging these discrepancies have been and how they have affected the trial and my right to have been heard in accordance with the law.
    Impartiality is essential in the true sense of a fair hearing but as I have described previously and from what I will show here, Sir Stephen Mitchell Q.C. was not impartial and he used his lofted position to influence the case in a manner that caused a wrongful conviction and the court to hear a plethora of lies and breaches of practice that, in my knowledge, has not been seen formerly.
    Mr Mitchell addressed the court as, "we the prosecution" and in my eyes that showed exactly his thinking of me and the case he was overseeing. The judge saw himself as a member of the prosecution with a job of convicting me. However this was not based solely on the evidence and witnesses that were being brought before the court for the murders of the Chohan family, this was also for a drugs offence in 1999. I had reneged on a deal with the prosecution, where Mr Mitchell was the presiding judge, to give evidence against others after receiving a lesser sentence (59). The case was involving cocaine worth £600,000,000.00. This did not sit well with either the prosecution or Mr Mitchell. This I feel, came back to me when it was decided that Mr Mitchell would be the judge in my trial in respect to the Chohan family.
  • HM CUSTOMS AND EXCISE LETTER 12/05/1999 (59).

  • At one stage Mr Mitchell stated to the court that he believed he had a prior knowledge of me but that it wouldn't affect the way in which he conducted the trial. This I consider to be ridiculous. He "believed"? I am without doubt that he knew me and exactly what I had done to him and the prosecution. It is my opinion that he should have stood down from the trial on the grounds of prior knowledge and that such could have been seen as prejudicial.
    Mr Mitchell refused the separation of the accused in this case of murder based upon his considerations that should this be allowed, then there would not be enough evidence to support a conviction. He also refused me access to a Q.C. which I believe comes under "Equality of Arms" (65). Mr Kamlish was fully prepared to act for me but the judge refused to wait a week for Mr Kamlish to be available thus meaning I was left with a senior junior. I accept I am ad-libbing here but I am awaiting the actual transcripts that cover this situation from the C.P.S. (60).
  • COPY OF LETTER FROM C.P.S. 15/02/2013 MR T. WAREHAM (61).
  • As detailed above, there have been a number of situations regarding "contempt of court". Where this is written and before the court prior to the individual appearing I propose this would now be the responsibility of the judge to identify this and challenge accordingly and make the jury aware of due inappropriateness. This did not happen. The judge, knowingly withheld evidence to the court and jury that would have shed a different complexion on the hearing and the witnesses that had been brought into the court setting.
    If these issues had been addressed accordingly, the jury would have been aware of Mr Chohans connections to crime, drug dealing, known offenders and his money problems with unknown or unrecorded persons that could well have been the reasoning behind his death. The jury would have known of the lies being told from witnesses brought in to support the prosecutions assertions. They would have known of witnesses that had a much bigger hand in the situation than they were led to believe. And they would have had a clearer understanding as to where Mr Chohans money had gone and how it was attributed. However, Mr Mitchell did not want this to be heard, he preferred the jury not to hear anything that may cast doubt over my guilt and so he kept quiet in regard to evidence that should have been disclosed within any court that was sitting in accordance with the law and justice.
    To further emphasise the issue of known contempt of court, perjury and misleading the jury, I will now move to my concerns with the witness Mr Eric Daniels. This is a man I had met whilst in prison, on drug offences. He is someone the police and prosecution introduced into the court as a witness to bring my previous criminal activity to the attention of the jury. This is not someone I knew well or associated with but, due to prison gossip and general banter, he knew of me and the drug shipments I had been involved in.
    This witness came into court looking ill, with an oxygen bottle and in need of constant assistance, which must have made anyone think of a vulnerable individual who had gone out of his way to assist the prosecution in their attempt in gaining justice. The reality is so far removed from this it may as well be another court case.
    Mr Daniels was brought into court as a known calculating liar who was able to formulate a story that married together loose strains of a series of innuendoes and possibilities that the prosecution had thrown together in an attempt to give cause for me to murder Mr Chohan and his family. It was seen by the prosecution that Mr Daniels could add that element of credence, to have me seen as a cold and calculating killer with a lead up to such a terrible scenario that could have come straight out of a murder mystery novel. In truth, Mr Daniels not only spouted an insane barrage of nonsense, but the prosecution, police and judge knew before his performance that he was going to commit perjury and they condoned such (62).

  • Such prior knowledge is an indication of the lengths the prosecution were willing to go to secure a conviction in a trial where truth had almost no bearing. Where I say "prosecution" I also characterise Sir Stephen Mitchell Q.C. as well, seeing as he was so intent on identifying himself as such within the confines of the court setting.
    It is absolutely impossible for the prosecution to argue this point as within the last 6 months they themselves have provided the enclosed paperwork that shows Mr Howells was given the information by the police and that the probation officer, which Mr Daniels had supposedly confided in, had stated categorically that the evidence Mr Daniels had provided, was false.
    By Mr Daniels being able to come into court and spin such a fantastical story it gave the prosecution ammunition to a weapon that did not exist. Metaphorically, they then used this to open up wounds that should have been left to heal years before hand. To think that I would have gone to someone that I did not know to set up a major drug operation and then also involve them in criminal activities from fraud to murder is plainly ridiculous. The fact that this is what the jury were led to believe by custodians of justice, who knew it was untrue is a terrible slight on the court and those allied to such.
    I have been involved in drugs and fraud as well as money laundering but to take this and use it, out of all context to devise a case of mass murder and kidnap is a total abuse of power and position. For barristers and a judge to sit and listen to the lies and then act upon such is criminal. How can this be seen as impartial? How can this be seen as a fair trial? It is certainly not independent if the prosecution and trial judge are working hand in hand with witnesses to bring a bearing within a case that is nonexistent and dishonest.
    If it is correct, under Article 6.2 that the accused has a right to be presumed innocent then I openly question whether anyone could possibly perceive that I was afforded this right? False information was drip fed to the media by the police and prosecution that was so damaging and wide spread that I doubt anyone, jury or otherwise could have missed the murders of the Chohan family and that I was the main suspect of this. My previous was dragged before the public at an alarming rate and then introduced as "evidence" in the trial. I submit that I was found guilty of these charges months before the jury went out to consider their verdict. The prosecution, judge and press bodies had made a decision and the jury were only there as a reinforcing agent. It is somewhat indicative of today's society to expect a large media interest in a high profile case but with a cause celebre, there should also follow a measure of truth, decency and fairness. And with the prejudicial aspect of the press coverage, it is not just the defence who were concerned about the abuse being portrayed. The police themselves had cause to issue a written concern to their legal department as it was unmistakable, the press were and continued to create a picture of events that were damaging, false and detrimental to a fair trial (64).
    Over the years there have many cases that have had to be reviewed due to inappropriateness at some stage or another. The evidence being tampered with; Witnesses being found to be lying; Breaches of conduct on the part of officials; Mal practice by those accumulating evidence; Hidden agendas that come to light to give cause of concern; Human Rights issues that show unfair or biased considerations throughout the trial; But how many times have they all being attributed to the same case? How many concerns of misconduct within a single case does it take to make the flashing beacon a warning sign that cannot be disregarded?
    It cannot be ignored that in such a complex case there has been so many discrepancies and failures that under any circumstance demand a review of the persons and evidence involved. In light of the new material made available to me, it appears obvious that there was not enough time for those representing me to, fully grasp the gravity of evidence or the specific material that should have been granted a fuller and more detailed understanding. There is also a question mark over whether the prosecution should have assessed things somewhat differently should they have been aware of all the documents available to them.
    The relevance of adequate time in accordance with proportion to the complexity and seriousness of the case is seen within Albert and Le Comps "v- Belgium 5 EHRR 533". And, when reading the judges summing up, it would appear the seriousness of the case is paramount in his thinking. Furthermore due to the amount of material accumulated within this case I believe my defence were not able to put in place the relevant and necessary arguments in the time given, as the Q.C. meant to be dealing with my trial was changed, leaving someone who was playing "catch up" and not being aware of all the avenues that needed his absolute attention. This I believe is covered by, Patanki and Dunshirn v- Austria 1963 6YB 714.
    Sir Stephen Mitchell Q.C. emphasises my role as the principal defendant and my co-defendants as somewhat the "foot soldiers". Without being overly circumspect, how does this marry with the facts in relation to the events he addresses regarding gains? The judge makes it very clear that he felt the whole matter revolved around the profit of the death of Mr Chohan, yet all said "gain" was by Mr Parr and this includes the questionable "Power of Attorney" as mentioned previously. If I was this "mastermind" as considered by the court, it was to murder 5 people give all the money, property and businesses to someone else and to receive nothing myself. This I do not consider to be the brainchild of a criminal mastermind, more that of a lunatic. More worrying is the fact that once these elements have been put together in the correct order, the puzzle is not a jigsaw of 10,000 pieces, it is akin to 2 blocks of wood that a toddler could figure out. The salient factor being, once all the pieces have been put together.
    Not with items missing or hidden from view. Not with witnesses given immunity where it is ill-afforded. Not with witness statements treated with contempt and acted upon with ineptitude.
    If this case had been seen for what it was in the light of all the evidence available, I would not have been found guilty of murder. There is a substantial wealth of material to support this claim and I have attempted to reason much of this within this document. There is still outstanding material that I have been assured I will gain access to and for what that holds, I cannot say.
    I fully believe that should the court consider the points I have raised, they will ultimately arrive at the correct conclusion that of an unsafe conviction based on unsafe evidence, false and malicious witness testimony, contempt of court on an unprecedented level, misuse of immunity orders, damaging breeches of policy in relation to the correct and lawful introduction of material evidence, breeches of Human Rights issues and perjury.
    I ask that the court take into consideration the fact I have formatted these enclosures without the assistance of a solicitor but I do believe the enclosed is of such strength that anyone reading such will be aware of the miscarriages as detailed.
    The above is a true account of all circumstances and evidence to the very best of my knowledge.