Kevin's Story
The Trial
The Appeal Process
Case For Concern
Diary
What can I do?
Contact Us
Kevin was charged with Mark's murder along with McKuch and Dhainault after limited police investigation. His Confessional interviews are clearly unreliable and the investigations did not conform to PACE guidelines. Although, unlike Kevin, from a different legal jurisdiction, the Frenchmen did have the benefit of the support of the French consulate and consequent legal representation, as well as translation facilities.
Kevin was returned to Bow Street Magistrates Court on the Monday morning and had to lay claim to legal services at the court itself. The duty solicitor was very surprised by the serious nature of Kevin's charge. Kevin relied on his solicitors to get him out of the mess he was in and he helped them as much as he could but he had little or no idea about the demands of a murder trial. He knew he was innocent and felt the court would recognize that as there was no real evidence against him. There is little doubt that Kevin was as traumatized by his being charged and tried as he was by the murder itself. Just before the trial started he was placed on high security which placed him at a further disadvantage in court and may have made his co-defendants abuse a criminal justice system in disarray. McKuch said Kevin was the killer. The prosecution line was that Kevin and McKuch had done it. The fact that Kevin and other people in the flat that night said or indicated that Christoph was responsible was not clearly presented to tbe jury, who obviously felt they had to convict someone. They were not convinced by Kevin on the stand and were totally unaware of the difficulties experienced by Kevin in communicating information and detail. If the jury had been aware of Kevin's linguistic disability one can only feel that they would not have come to the same conclusion.
Sentence
The French co-defendants were given four years for actual bodily harm and Kevin was convicted of murder. It was suggested by the judge that the Home Secretary of the day might choose never to release Kevin although he subsequently recommended eighteen years.
Learning Difficulties
By the nature of his learning difficulties Kevin had difficulties in comprehending actually what did happen that night of the murder and was lost and confused in the pressures and isolation of police custody and subsequent remand. His very intelligence put him at a disadvantage because no one appreciated his problems with language and communication and the effect this was having. In psychological evidence presented at trial by the defence, his learning difficulties were mistaken for a serious personality disorder, Kevin did not realise until 1993 that this was what his solicitors had done. He thought that the solicitor's suggestion of diminished responsibility on his part arose because of the random use of alcohol and amphetamines associated with street living and his use of 'acid' on the night of the killing.
After three days on the stand he was so phased out that he does not remember any psychiatrists giving evidence, however, this evidence will have had a devastating affect on Kevin's case. Quite apart from other circumstances, it is very clear, given the nature of Kevin's dyslexic disability, that not only would he be unable to cope with the rigours of police interrogation but also he would not be able to deal with the demands of preparing for a trial, let alone the trial itself. Kevin never understood his trial; he certainly does not understand his appeal, nor the nature of an appeal. A witness or defendant in a legal process needs good working memory skills, sustained under pressure, in order to give reliable verbal and written evidence. The adversarial, legal process requires just those skills which Kevin finds most difficult. This is one of the reasons why Kevin should neither have been charged nor convicted on the basis of his police interviews. The court was presented with a picture of Kevin that does not meet the facts of his life and by the very nature of his disability this myth followed him through his sentence and prison life. Kevin has always acknowledged the lifestyle he was leading at the time of his arrest and was glad to be taken from the streets and given a second chance but not at the expense of this grave injustice and for the years that it is taking to get off the miscarriage of justice merry-go-round.
Lifer
In common with most lifers Kevin was initially held on Category A status and then moved to B. He had never heard what the judge said when he was sentenced so the "come back in seventeen years; we'll give you your tariff then but never expect to get out". When Kevin was told in March 1988 it came as a major shock and a dead end of hopelessness. When Kevin thought he'd take the flack at Carter Street rather than get the girls involved, during his first interview at Carter Street Police Station, he had little or no idea of the English way of doing things. He came from a different country with a different legal system and although this was brought before the Court in respect of the French co-defendants; all that was brought before the court for Kevin was prejudicial racial stereotyping.
In July 1988 Kevin was placed back on Cat A status where he remained until April 1995 and would have remained but for his submission and an insistence that the Prison Service take a closer look at the material being presented by the prison. For a man already isolated by disability, living in another country away from his family and friends, it was yet another unjust sentence.