163206
LETTER TO AN MP
Dear
Subject: Miscarriage of Justice: Mr Christopher Nudds
I am writing to you to bring to your attention what I and the supporters of the above campaign consider to be a severe miscarriage of justice. We believe the issue of people being wrongly convicted, of which, there are many, with numbers increasing each and every year, should be taken seriously by each and every member of the British public.
We appreciate that, although neither Mr Nudds, nor myself, his campaign manager, are members of your constituency I would hope that you might feel that you can help. So, on behalf of Chris and myself, may I ask that you might at least read through this letter and look at this case, if only to acquaint yourself with some of the reasons that members of the British public are not getting fair trials, especially, in this case, the production of the PII certificate in court.
We would like to share our concerns with you in the hope that this particular case can be resolved with justice prevailing. Whilst we appreciate that it would be wrong to grant an appeal against the conviction of a guilty man, it serves no purpose for an innocent man to be imprisoned. It does not benefit the victim (if, in this case there actually was a victim), their family, friends, the community or society as a whole.
I fully appreciate the need for the authorities to take great care in reaching the decisions which they have to make regarding trials, appeals and retrials, but with your support in our fight for justice, common sense will prevail.
The above case relates to Mr Christopher Nudds who was convicted in March 2006, at Northampton Crown Court of a murder which he simply did not commit. The jury verdict was originally 10/2 and later changed to 11/1.
The case involves a traveller/gypsy, Mr Fred Moss, who was reported missing from home. Although no body was ever found, from the onset the police dealt with the missing person enquiry as though it was a murder enquiry. Mr Nudds appears to be the last one to have seen him and as is often the case. the police presumed therefore that he had murdered him and set about building a case. After Mr Nudds had been the one to find Mr Moss's vehicle he was arrested and subsequently charged with murder.
A more in-depth look at the details surrounding this case can be found on our website. www.justice4chrisnudds.co.uk
I have read through over sixteen boxes of case notes, each containing 7 large lever arch files, so I do feel more than adequately qualified to make comments on this case. I, along with many other supporters have great concerns about the safety of his conviction.
The main areas of evidence consist of mobile telephone evidence placing Mr Nudds in the area where Mr Moss was alleged to have gone missing, which, as Mr Nudds lived in that area should not have been thought of as so compelling. Evidence of blood found on various implements and in Mr Nudds's car which were said to contain Mr Moss's DNA. A more than adequate explanation for this was given by Mr Nudds, and an alleged confession made to a cellmate which Mr Nudd's completely refutes.
Our cause of concern is that Mr Nudds did not get a fair trial and our campaign is to try and get this conviction quashed, or at the very least secure him an appeal followed by a retrial. His leave to appeal hearing on January 22nd 2008 was unsuccessful.
Our reasons for believing he did not get a fair trial are many and include the following:-
Each and every move made by the police during the search for Fred Moss was reported in great detail by the media, including the local newspapers and the TV news. Thus allowing any prospective member of the jury to have heard and read about the case before it ever got into court and to have already had the opportunity to make their decision as to Mr Nudds's guilt even before his trial.
The alleged cellmate confession, we feel should have never been allowed into court for many reasons, including the fact that the person who alleged that Mr Nudds had made such a confession had every opportunity to watch the story on the TV and read about it in local newspapers, access to which we know he had whilst in Bedford prison. He, prior to being placed on remand for offences against children, lived in the Hertfordshire area and was also likely to have been kept informed of the news by his partner. He also suffered mental health problems due to drug abuse. He had previously been used by the police as an informant and was, in this case specifically 'tasked' by the police to act as an informant.
The evidence, which consisted of blood in Mr Nudds's vehicle, even though, given a more than satisfactory explanation as to why it could have been there, should not have been allowed into court, because prior to Mr Nudd's arrest he was abducted by a group of travellers, driven to a secluded area and severely beaten. Upon return to his vehicle the travellers proceeded to search his vehicle, thereby possibly contaminating any evidence which might have been in there and removing various items including his mobile phone, which after taking from it various contact numbers of Mr Nudds they handed in to the police. Whilst all this was taking place two police officers sat by and watched, taking no action to prevent Mr Nudds's abduction or the searching of his vehicle. For this action they were formally disciplined, documentation for which we have in our possession.
Telephone evidence, was heavily relied upon in court, and whilst documenting in great detail Mr Nudds's whereabouts during the period in which Fred Moss was missing and prior to Mr Nudds's arrest, was never looked at over the weeks previous, which would have shown that Mr Nudds was in and around this area all the time due to it being his home and working area.
And finally, the introduction of a PII certificate into court, thereby not allowing Mr Nudds's defence team to hear, in full, the complete evidence and how it was obtained. This meant that they could not defend him properly. With the recent episodes in the news about prisoners rights being violated whilst in prison and the allowing of legal visits to be 'bugged', we feel that there is far too much secrecy surrounding some trials and allowing PII's into court in a case like this is an abuse of the police and CPS powers.
Whilst we do appreciate that PII's in some circumstances are necessary, ie, in cases concerning child abuse, in terrorism cases and cases regarding national security or organized crime, the PII introduced into this case is simply not acceptable and should never have been allowed.
I do sincerely believe that Mr Nudds is truly innocent of the crime for which he has been convicted and I would implore you to at least read his story. I hope, if you read his story that you feel that you can support him and lend your voice to our campaign to overturn his conviction or secure him a retrial.
I know, as an MP, you must be very busy so I do thank you for taking the time to read my letter and I although I do apologise for the length of it, this is a complicated case and could not be thoroughly explained in fewer words.
Yours Sincerely