M25 Three - Weaknesses in The Prosecution Case

Weaknesses in The Prosecution Case

A witness for the defence testified that he had seen the green Triumph Spitfire, in the location where it was eventually found, at approximately 0030 UTC on 16 December. Given Williamson's testimony that Rowe had still been at the bail hostel at this time, this placed Rowe away from the scene and therefore the subsequent crime spree. The judge at the original trial drew this to the jury's attention in his summing up, and also highlighted that the evidence of Jobbins, Duncan and Griffin came from men who essentially were accomplices, and Williamson was by her own admission a handler of stolen goods.

There were also serious discrepancies between the appearance of the three defendants and the descriptions given by witnesses. All three defendants were black men, but Alan Eley had initially told the police he thought that only one of the assailants was black, the other two being white men, although all three had worn balaclavas throughout the attack. Both Richard Napier and his wife also said that they thought that at least one attacker was white, a view repeated by Rosemary Spicer. However, in both of the robberies, as with the attack on Eley and Hurburgh, none of the men had removed their balaclavas. Part of the prosecution case relied upon a conversation Johnson was alleged to have had with a fellow prisoner, in which he admitted guilt and described one of his accomplices as a "redskin". The prosecution pointed out that in his police interviews, Johnson also used the expression "redskin", a Jamaican term to describe someone with lightly coloured skin, and that Rowe was lightly coloured.

There was no physical evidence linking Johnson to any of the scenes of crime or to any property stolen from them.

The trial judge, Lord Justice Auld, summed up over four days and at the 2000 ruling it was acknowledged that the summation was "a careful, fair and wholly accurate reflection of the evidence and the issues. His directions in law were impeccable. He drew attention to the weaknesses in the prosecution case as well as its strengths. Having directed the jury as to the burden and standard of proof he said: "That test is particularly important in a case such as this when so much of the evidence is disputed, where much of the prosecution evidence is itself tainted for one reason or another and where there is considerable uncertainty and inconsistency in important areas.""