Afternoon:
24°c
It’s amazing to learn they did any research at all — unless it was into farting and foreskins
Teenager becomes the first person to die of swine flu in London and the fourth in the country
More...
Cleared: the black motorist convicted despite white culprit caught on CCTV
Last updated at 10:07am on 05.11.06
Innocent: Edmond Taylor, top, and the real culprit caught on CCTV
It should have been an open and shut case. But a black man has revealed how blunders by court officials meant he was convicted of a driving offence...despite police having video footage of a white offender.
Edmond Taylor, 25, fought a bizarre year-long battle to clear his name. But only when an astonished judge was finally shown the CCTV footage last week was Mr Taylor cleared on appeal.
He had been convicted of dangerous driving, the only evidence being police reports. He was banned from driving for a year and fined £430.
Mr Taylor, who works as a cash handler for Securitas, said: "I attended four hearings. If they had looked at the video once they would have realised I was not the person they wanted.
"I did miss a couple of hearings but the police officer didn't attend any. How many times did they need to see me to know that I was black and the man who broke the law was white?'
The saga began in the summer last year when a man was seen reversing a Vauxhall Corsa along the hard shoulder of the M23.
When PC Paul James of Surrey Police arrived to investigate, the man had left the car and was walking along the hard shoulder carrying a petrol can.
The officer escorted the driver back to the Corsa, where he gave his name as Edmond Taylor and produced a document to prove his identity and that he owned the car.
The officer issued a fixed penalty notice and a notice for the driver to produce his insurance and other documents at a police station.
What the officer did not know was that the car - and Mr Taylor's identity - had been stolen.
The thief, after being allowed to drive on, returned the car to where he had stolen it - outside Mr Taylor's home in South London.
The fixed penalty, of course, was never paid and the documents were never produced. Not until a summons arrived did Mr Taylor have any knowledge of the incident.
At a preliminary hearing at Redhill Magistrates Court, Mr Taylor said he had never been to the spot where the offence happened and had not been stopped by police.
PC James was not in court, despite the fact that his evidence could have cleared Mr Taylor.
A trial date was fixed but PC James did not turn up then, either. It was the same story on Mr Taylor's third appearance, when magistrates decided to try the case on the paperwork.
On his fourth appearance Mr Taylor, who has a two-year-old daughter and an eight-year-old son, was convicted, fined and disqualified, though he was given notice to appeal.
Mr Taylor, who had been warned he would lose his job if found guilty, said: "When I first got the summons I thought it must be a mistake. The first hearing was in November 2005, so this has gone on for a year.
"Every time I went to court I said I had never driven there. But they consistently said it was me because of the police statement.
"Each time I asked for the policeman to be there. I even thought of contacting him myself, but I didn't know which station he was from.
"The CPS prosecutor kept saying, 'How many times are we going to give Mr Taylor the chance to lie to the court?'
"I was very angry when he said that because there was no evidence. To give the police officer his due, he apologised to me after the appeal. I asked him why he had never come to court. He said the court had told him it wasn't necessary."
Last week Judge John Crocker took just minutes to quash the conviction at Guildford Crown Court after being shown a CCTV picture of the moment of arrest - and the driver's colour. The judge ordered an immediate investigation into the blunder.
He told the court: "It is totally disgraceful. Why has this only come to light today? I want a full explanation as to how this occurred and I want it within three weeks."
A CPS spokesman said: "We are looking into exactly what happened in this case and will be supplying the judge with a report."
A Surrey Police spokesman said: "We apologise unreservedly to Mr Taylor for the upset and worry he has gone through. The officer was not in court because the nature of the offence did not require him to be."
Reader views (10)
Here's a sample of the latest views published.
Steve said that if the officer had attended all four hearings then he'd have been criticised for not being out catching crooks. But, if he had attended just the first hearing then there would have been no need for the three subsequent hearings! More importantly, why did the CPS and defence (if solicitors were instructed, which they probably were not as legal aid is not normally available for this offence) not review the CCTV evidence?
This is a disgraceful case, which shows the ineptitude of the CPS in its current form.
- Nick, London, UK
I would appear the Police can't win. If the Officer was at court for all four hearings then it would have been a waste of tax payers money that Police were in court when they could be catching criminals.
- Steve, Aberdeen, Scotland
In Canada, well, in Ontario, anyway, if the arresting officer doesn't appear in court, the case is THROWN OUT! It's happened to me twice over a period of 21 years. I've been advised, by both, a policeman and a court- attorney, to ask for "night-court" if possible. Seems cops are reluctant to get out of bed during the "wee" hours! This gentleman may have been saved all this grief, had this rule been upheld in British courts. By the way, if he thinks his troubles are over, with the case being overturned he's in for a HUGE shock. This will likely haunt him for many years to come. His insurance company will be reluctant to expunge this falsehood.
- Warren Brown, Brampton, Ontario, Canada
It's not for nothing that Magistrates' Courts used to be known as Police Courts. Whatever evidence the Police give, even hearsay without corroboration, is routinely accepted, whereas the defendant is presumed guilty until proved innocent.
This travesty should never have occurred.
- Malcarr, Manchester
Did they return Mr. Taylor's money?
- Izicata, UK
Trial procedure must require a right to confront witnesses, and exclude hearsay evidence. To deny these fundamental provisions for a fair trial invites conviction of innocent men.
- Carter Stephen, Hilton Head, US
It's Presiden't Bush's fault! Blame Bush!
- Hah, United States
It's really quite simple, once again the clerical errors have shown the need for a uniform system of identification whereby all persons in the country shall be fingerprinted, and be required to carry that identification with them at all times. Therefore, anyone that is spoken to by Police will be instantly recognised, and identified positively, and this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Of course the civil libertarians will disagree, but they are also the first ones to complain when they are the victim.
- Matthew, Adelaide
"The CPS prosecutor kept saying, 'How many times are we going to give Mr Taylor the chance to lie to the court?'
Ummmm, he wasn't lying, really - did you see the video?
A CPS spokesman said: "We are looking into exactly what happened in this case and will be supplying the judge with a report."
Hmm, maybe it was US who were lying.
A Surrey Police spokesman said: "We apologise unreservedly to Mr Taylor for the upset and worry he has gone through. The officer was not in court because the nature of the offence did not require him to be."
Evidence, we don't need no stinking evidence!
- Jonathan, Chicago, Illinois
As the Boomtown Rats once said, "Justice isn't blind, it just looks the other way".
- Liz Hegel, Chicago, USA
