Conviction of Michael Shields - Police and MoJ Memoranda

Police and MoJ Memoranda

According to an initial memo, released under Freedom of Information requests, on 25 March 2008 by the head of Merseyside police Brian McNeill to Jack Straw, it was stated that if evidence from an unidentified witness (Witness A) allegedly identifying an alternative suspect to Shields has not been submitted to Bulgarian courts, then - on presumptive legal equivalence between UK and Bulgarian law - Shields might have been able to appeal against his conviction and apply for release on bail during the appeal process (although for attempted murder, remand is presumed more likely). The memo also states the opposing case - that if the court system in Bulgaria had considered the evidence of Witness A, and that the conviction of Shields should stand, a pardon would require "further deliberation". Further, it stated that should the conviction of Shields be overturned in Bulgaria, that Merseyside police would render "all assistance formally requested (from the Bulgarian police) in dealing with (Graham) Sankey" who had made and then retracted a public confession to the crime, As Sankey retracted his confession and refused to return to Bulgaria to be interviewed by police or appear in court, it was inadmissible as evidence there. The memo states that Graham Sankey, Anthony Wilson and Bradley Thompson "refused to cooperate entirely with Merseyside police during the inquiry". No explicit identification of Witness A was made in the police report.

However, a later memo on 1 May 2009 after discussion with QC David Perry and Tim Jewill, head of the criminal law team at the Ministry of Justice, Brian McNeill "accepted the decision of the Bulgarian courts is to be treated as final and the legal process regarding any appeal by Shields in that country (Bulgaria) has been exhausted", whilst expressing the opinion that had Shields's defence presented the evidence of Witness A for consideration that in the UK "this case would now be referred back to the court of appeal or to the criminal case review commission.". Such an interpretation has been seized as evidence of Shield's "innocence" by his supporters. The reasons that Shield's defence did not present the evidence of Witness A, and the nature, validity and presence of that evidence has not been made clear.