Kevan Sloan
Draft.
Speech by George Howarth MP in House of Commons
Week
comenscing 14th Oct 2002
Draft
On
15th May 2001, my constituent, Kevan Sloan, was in Tenerife, visiting his mother
who works and lives there. He was arrested and charged with involvement in five
robberies. Subsequently, he was acquitted of three of the charges and a fourth
was dropped altogether by the prosecution.
Several
of the allegations made against Kevan were, frankly, ridiculous. Indeed, well
before the trial he was able to demonstrate conclusively that he was not even
on the island on some of the relevant dates. I will comment on the evidence used
to convict Kevan shortly, but would first like to make some general observations.
Kevan is a 26 year-old-man from Kirkby in my constituency. He has no previous
criminal record and has been in continuous employment at a local builders' merchant
since leaving school. Indeed, his employers have been very supportive of him throughout
and were able to provide firm evidence that he was at work in the UK on the dates
of some of the original alleged incidents.
I do find it astonishing that a young man of previous good character could suddenly
turn into a one-man crime wave. People who rob supermarkets are hard-nosed criminals.
It seems to me highly improbable that Kevan would, having never previously been
in any trouble with the police, arrive as a fully formed professional criminal
in Tenerife.
However, the impression given by the authorities at his trial
was precisely that. I have pondered on why this might be. Fair trials abroad,
an organisation which has taken a close interest in Kevan's case, has described
the trial judge's conduct during the hearing of Kevan's case as 'questionable'
and 'xenophobic.'
If this were the case, we have to ask, was it just a lapse of objectivity or a character flaw on the part of the trial judge? Or can there be some other explanation? Obviously, this is a difficult call to make, particularly since I was not present at the trial to witness the judge's behaviour at first-hand. However, in a parliamentary written answer to me of 2nd July 2001, from the new parliamentary under secretary, my Hon Friend the Member for Exeter throws some light on this. It shows that in Tenerife, there are some 4,000 cases per year who seek consular assistance. This figure is far higher than other popular foreign holiday destinations, for example, Ibiza, with 2000 such cases, Corfu with 450 and Benidorm, Majorca and Malaga, which between them receive some 550 cases.
I believe this might be a clue to the reason why Kevan was dealt with so severely, when the evidence for his conviction was, as I hope to demonstrate, so unreliable. Even allowing for the fact that not all requests for consular assistance in Tenerife will have come from UK tourists in trouble with the police, many will be. It seems quite likely to me that, given the obvious problem of lawlessness from UK tourists in Tenerife, Kevan was quite likely made a scapegoat for crimes committed by others. As judges often put it, he was made an example to others who might transgress in future. Arguably, had he been guilty, this would not have been unreasonable. However, to make an example of an innocent man is, in my opinion, an unforgivable corruption of all of the basic principles of justice.
I
might add that in the normal course of events I am not, as regards law and order
issues a bleeding heart liberal. Indeed, I suspect many colleagues see me as more
hard-line than my Rt Hon Friend the Home Secretary.
Let me be clear. I am
convinced there has been an unmistakable miscarriage of justice in Kevan's case.
I base this conclusion on the actual evidence as well as the disgraceful conduct
of the trial judge and the subsequent appeal judges.
Kevan was convicted of robbing the La Familia supermarket, a shop he used as a customer occasionally, opposite his mother's flat on l5th May 2001. The only witness to the robbery was the woman serving in the shop at the time of the robbery. Initially, she stated that she was not sure if she would recognise the perpetrator again. Three days later, she made a positive identification from CCTV pictures of the alleged robber. These pictures do not resemble Kevan at all. However, the witness then changed her mind yet again and, having been previously shown photographs of Kevan, picked him out in an identity parade. None of the others in the parade bore any resemblance at all to Kevan. This is hardly the behaviour of a reliable witness. Nor is it a proper use of identity parades. It bears all of the hallmarks of somebody manipulated into choosing one person irrespective of guilt or innocence.
Moreover, given that Kevan was staying just across the road from the supermarket and occasionally used it as a customer, it is highly likely that the person serving at the shop would have recognised him, albeit in a different context to the robbery.
The
witness gave evidence that the robber spoke in colloquial Spanish -Kevan does
not speak Spanish at all but, even had he some knowledge of the language, it would
be most unusual for him to use it in a colloquial accent. Despite the fact that
six reliable witnesses had stated at the pre-trial hearing that Kevan could not
speak Spanish and that the judge at the original trial acknowledged that no evidence
had been produced that he could speak it, the judges at the appeal in 2002 concluded
that he could have conducted a robbery in the language. Fair Trials Abroad believes
that the judges at the Appeal might have misread one of the defence witness statements,
referring to her own limited proficiency in Spanish as meaning that Kevan could
speak it.
Kevan's defence produced five witnesses at the appeal who provided
a substantial alibi that, at the time of the robbery, he was with them in a bar
some 270 metres from the supermarket. Moreover, they gave evidence that, since
the bar had only one door, Kevan could not have left and returned without them
seeing him.
Finally, the robbery of which he was convicted, according to Fair Trials Abroad, bore a remarkable resemblance to the other four robberies with which Kevan was originally charged. As they put it 'the judges made no comment to the fact that there was a clear series of robberies with the same pattern in all five cases.' Since Kevan was not even on the island when most had occurred, it does seem highly likely that all five were committed by the same person, but none of them by Kevan.
After an initial trial and an appeal, both of which were questionable and produced an unsafe verdict, Kevan has now served more that 17 months of a three and a half year sentence for a crime he did not commit. Within the last few weeks, he has been moved to a part of the prison with prisoners on long sentences and has to share a cell with a non-English speaking inmate. He has determined not to learn Spanish since he believes to do so would compromise his defence pending a further appeal to the court in Madrid.
Together
with Kevan's family and the Liverpool Echo, I have been part of a campaign to
free him.
Earlier this year, my Rt Hon friend the Member for Blackburn kindly
met me together with Kevan's father, Tommy Sloan, and his mother, Eileen Forrester.
I know that recently my Rt Hon Friend has raised Kevan's case with his opposite
number from Spain and I would like to place on record my gratitude for his efforts.
Kevan has, through his lawyer in Tenerife, applied for a deportation order which, if successful, could secure his release. He has gone to great lengths, however, to make it clear tat in doing so he in no way accepts any guilt.
My plea, and that of his family, is that this application should be dealt with speedily and Kevan should be allowed to come home, where he belongs. He has suffered far beyond anything that could remotely be considered reasonable for a crime he did not commit and I hope the Spanish authorities will take due note and act accordingly.
This draft is reproduced and posted here with the permission of George Howarth MP