• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

Judge imprisons a man despite openly expressing his own doubts about the conviction

Scales Now that our CCTV report has been published, I am catching up on various stories from the past few weeks.  One that you may have already seen is this, over at the Times.

Philip Bowles, a businessman, has been imprisoned for an apparent failure to pay over £1 million in VAT. So far, so fair enough.  But the plot thickens.

Bowles lived with his assets frozen for three years, reliant on legal aid to help him fund his defence.  In those three years, access to his firm's records (vital to establish the defence) was hampered by this, and also by the fact that the firm was in administration.  So a vital report from a forensic accountancy investigation into his affairs, compiled gratis by a neutral accountancy firm, was not ready until after he was convicted on one of the three counts his faced.

The report concluded that, rather than having cheated the Revenue, Bowles had in fact overpaid.

Whilst the document was not available for the trial, was available by the time that it came to sentence this man.  His QC submitted that this vital new evidence, unseen by the jury, was so significant that the Court of Appeal ought to hear about it before Bowles was sentenced.  This is without precedent, but it must be right, mustn't it?  The material was relevant and probative and ought to have been seen by the jury in the course of the trial.  It is expert, neutral evidence, pointing directly to the innocence of the convicted man.  It has emerged late through no fault of the defendant's.

For those reasons, as you can read about over at the Times, the Judge openly expressed concerns about putting a man “in a place where he should not be if he is not guilty”, saying “I am loath to let this matter drag on but equally I am loath to put a man in prison if he shouldn’t be there."  And yet he nevertheless went on to sentence Bowles to custody, and he is now in prison.  The Judge, acting – I must stress – entirely in accordance with established rules, protocols, procedures and precedent, sentenced him to imprisonment, pending his now-inevitable appeal.

Behind the eye-catching headline about the judge's doubts, this may at first glance seem to be a narrow or technical question about when and how one can appeal one's conviction and/or sentence.  But it's one that has enormous ramifications for the individual in such a position – indeed, it has meant the difference for this man (who has no previous convictions) between being at liberty and being in prison.  As he spends Christmas behind bars, to him and his family that distinction will not seem narrow or technical at all.

Until his case is heard in the Court of Appeal, this 60 year old businessman with no previous convictions will be incarcerated at our expense rather than out and earning and supporting his family.  One must ask, in the circumstances – to what end?

I in no way mean to take a cheap crack at the justice system in which I have worked for some years but it seems to me that a legal system that lacks the flexibility properly to reflect the discovery or production of significant new evidence is a system in which the relationship between the state and its rigid procedures and the individual is unbalanced.  It is a system in which the very serious power to deny an individual his liberty is not fettered by appropriate caution and governed by good sense as it properly should be.  It is a system in need of reform.

By Alex Deane

Posted on December 22, 2009 by Alex Deane Posted in Legal Action, Overbearing state
  • Guy Herbert

    There’s also the matter of the judge having no discretion in the sentence. Under the circumstances one would have theought justice demanded an absolute discharge, were the judge permitted to sentence on the facts known to him.

  • anonymous

    What many people may not realise is that where a defendent or someone taking to someone else to court do not have access to a fair level of justice or where they are treated unfairly or worse ie mistreated or corruption or gross injustice occurs, the added stress further reduces their access to justice – their logistical ability to present their side of the case. That is if they have a genuine chance of justice in the first place – the money, the health, the time, energy, support from family, friends, others.
    I read about what the jurors did when William Penn was tried. Are more British citizens – including judges (and citizens in other countries) prepared to count the cost and support verbally, practically those who fac injustice? Today it may be Mr. Bowles, tomorrow it could be any of us or our loved ones, including those who are in positions of favour or power, even those who cooperate or enable miscarriages of justice.
    Those who framed the POCA and RIPA legislation and the like, should have been aware (ie not naive) to know in advance that this kind of misacarriage of justice would occur. If they were not naive, why did they allow it? It was obvious.
    My thoughts and Christian prayers go out to him and his family, and all others who are not getting access to fair justice with mercy and discretion, as well as to those who get snared into the net of ridiculous consequences including the judge, the police, the court system etc. But I also hope that everyone will not enable or collaborate with obvious wrongs, let alone pass laws which create this kind of injstice. I hope that God restores to Mr. Bowles the years the locust has eaten – family life, business, work, money, relationships, health, healthy stress levels, any trust in the system which has been rationally eroded by such terrible treatment – all these and more are incrementally harmed by bad laws, bad systems, lack of justice and access to it. Britain deserves better, and so does Mr. Bowles, Mr. McKinnon, Mr. Robinson (Salford), Ms. Petrie, Duke Amachree, Ms. Olive Jones, the JFS school case – there is a long and growing list (and where I have omitted any names, please forgive me).
    Anyone in government (local or not), lawyers, courts, police, citzens etc. who has not might consider asking themsleves, if someone asks or tells me to do something obviously immoral or illegal, or something legal but wrong, what ethical things can I do or not do to uphold the real rule of law or reduce crime including corruption in other cases? What if I lose my job? What if I get smeared? What will I do?
    I hope and ray that people who are not will do the right thing by their consciences, not the expedient thing where there is a conflict. Every injustice is like another fell of the axe against a tree which represents justice and civil society. If enough people do right, justice with mercy and discretion will increase and society will revive. We won’t have anyone but ourselves to blame if we don’t do our parts. Today Mr. Bowles, tomorrow it may be you. Lack of access to reasonable justice and corruption and unjust laws seem to be increasing in the US too. I hope both countries will prosper as mor and more people decide to do what is right by their consciences in ethical ways.

  • anonymous

    correction – I am NOT into anarchy: I meant to say “What ethical things can I do, or what things which would be UNETHICAL can I choose not to do”

  • Paul B.

    Curious judge! The correct thing to have done would have been to have bailed the defendent pending his Appeal hearing. Simple.