Selected Writings of Mark Barnsley

Seven Years a Hostage to Injustice

From Grindelford Bridge I walked through fields to a wood, with a light drizzle falling around me. Crossing the river I went on to Calver Sough, pausing to watch a mother bird feeding her nest-bound young on the way. I stopped for a pint and a sandwich before continuing onto Baslow, and then striding out for Baslow Edge and the moors beyond.

I had been busy throughout much of May and early June, not least in working on 2 walking guides I was writing simultaneously. Several days each week I had been out in the Peak District, walking the routes I intended to use, sometimes with my family but usually alone.

On this particular day I continued along the tops of Curbar and Froggatt Edges, and then down through woodland back to Grindelford Bridge. Except for a short period of mist-like rain at the start of my walk it had been a warm, fine day. I felt happy and content as I made my way back home to my partner and children.

These memories are so faded now they may as well belong to someone else, like something I might have read in a book many years ago. Yet still I cling onto them, they represent my last full day of freedom.

The following day was June 8th 1994, a day I've replayed in my head hundreds of thousands of times. It started well enough, just like any other. My life was happy then, I felt content in a way I have not felt since. Of course I've been over all the 'if only's countless times - If only Jane hadn't rang; if only Sam hadn't had an appointment; If only I'd been ill; Etc, etc, etc. But disaster was heading towards my life as relentlessly as a speeding bullet, and I didn't even know. My concerns were that my daughter Daisy was comfortable in her pram, that we had the rain hood in case it rained, not that I would be attacked in broad daylight and that my life was about to change forever.

This year, 2001, on June 8th, it will be the 7th anniversary of the Pomona Incident- 7 years that I've been trapped inside this nightmare. I'm still waiting for the CPS to hand over the evidence they were lawfully obligated to disclose in 1994, still waiting for the CCRC to even start investigating my case, and of course I'm still waiting for justice.

I don't know what you were doing on June 8th, 1994, but it's a long time ago isn't it? John Major was still Prime Minister (Tony Blair had only just been elected leader of the Labour Party), Charles and Di were still married and Bill Clinton could still pretend (however implausibly) to be honest. Mobile phones were restricted to yuppies and drug-dealers, the cops carried neither CS gas nor extendable batons, and the internet was still in it's infancy. There was no National Lottery, no Channel 5, no 'Spice Girls', no 'Trainspotting, and no 'Pulp Fiction'. I had 3 young children in 1994, but my eldest is now nearly an adult, and even my youngest, who has never known a father that wasn't in prison, is seven.

I doubt that anyone who looked at my case in 1994 thought that I would be convicted, let alone still be in prison today -With the exception of the crooks and liars who put me here of course.

Not content with fitting me up, the State has continued to try to destroy me throughout my imprisonment. For 7 long years I have been ground under the heel of the State, subjected to sustained psychological (and sometimes physical) torture and the abuse of my human rights. Yet in taking away so much, by treating me so badly, they have granted me a clarity of purpose, and only reinforced my determination to fight for justice.

Over the past 18 months my treatment at the hands of the Prison Service has been particularly inhumane, as they have sought to isolate me and break my spirit. Since January 2000 I have been housed in 7 different high security prisons (2 of those twice), I have been held in segregation 7 times, I have been beaten up, subjected to countless inhumanities, had property stolen and destroyed, been separated from my legal papers for months on end, my mail is stolen, my visitors harassed, I am unable to see my children. Currently I am located in the worst long-term prison in Britain, a showcase of corruption and abuse, and my situation is only getting worse. And the morally-bankrupt mandarins of the Prison Service, and even Prisons Minister Paul Boateng himself, have the temerity to claim that I'm somehow being treated routinely - If that's the case, it shows what a truly rotten, evil system they administer.

The lies penned by the likes of Boateng, Atherton, Narey et al are disgracefully transparent, but for sheer brazen dishonesty the Governor here at HMP Wakefield takes some beating. In one recent letter being sent out to supporters who wrote to complain about my allocation here, he had the cheek to claim that I was "making full use of the very wide range of facilities this prison has to offer him".

This is in a prison with the most restricted property list imaginable, where most days prisoners do not even get the statutory minimum of half an hour's exercise, where there is no guarantee of receiving mail that is sent, where many of my visits have been behind glass, and where I had to wait 2 weeks for my first shower. I don't know what these 'facilities' are, but Mr. Shaw probably considers it a 'privilege' that prisoners are not woken with a beating each morning. Wakefield is a premier league punishment move, and a blatantly obvious one - Anyone in the Prison service who claims otherwise is quite simply a liar.

Each day I'm held within the clutches of a thousand tyrants, big and small, who continue to do everything they can to break me. The abuses that I am subjected to should be condemned, and loudly, but ultimately they will make no difference, they will certainly never achieve their aim of bringing me to my knees. I remain defiant, and will continue to fight for justice until my dying breath.

The solidarity I receive adds greatly to my strength, and lifts my spirits when times are at their worst. It has taken a long time, and a lot of hard work by a small number of people, but the campaign is finally beginning to flourish. A number of new initiatives are coming together- We will soon have a new pamphlet, a benefit CD, public meetings, and hopefully yet more of the inspiring acts of direct action and demonstrations of solidarity the campaign is now capable of mounting. But to become truly effective the campaign still needs the involvement of many more people. We have a large and growing mailing list, but only a small percentage of those on it are contributing directly to the campaign. Sympathy for my plight is all well and good, but anything short of concrete solidarity will not actually bring justice any closer for me.

The action on June 8th this year represents an opportunity for all the many individuals and organisations who know about my injustice to actually do something, by letting the authorities know that I am not alone, and that the continuous human rights abuses to which I am subjected will not be tolerated. It's been 7 years since I last tasted the sweet air of freedom, please don't allow the state to bury me for any longer, demand justice now!

Mark Barnsley - Wakefield Prison.

AOP's, Association of Prisoners

I was interested to read about these latest plans to form a prisoners union, (AOP's, Association of Prisoners) and would be interested to know more. I fully support the idea of prisoners organising to fight back against the current wave of repression, but it would clearly be naive to think that the system would welcome or applaud the formation of any genuinely radical organisation. like all despots they both loathe and fear the solidarity and mutual aid which will ultimately lead to their destruction.

While much can be achieved, even in reformist terms, a proper perspective on prison work needs to be considered carefully. In my view, simple calls for a ‘fairer’ prison wage are not only reformist and short-sighted, but they play into the hands of the builders of the Prison Industrial Complex. Indeed the cosmetic raising of prison wages is an intrinsic part of its cementation. We are seeing this in private prison like Lowdham Grange, where prisoners receive a higher than average wage, but sign away their rights, to day-time visits, full-time medical care and education. The private prison companies, and ultimately the state, will gladly pay out higher prison wages (generally based on piece-work,) in return for a compliant and hard-working slave labour force - ‘Better a happy slave than a resentful one.’ Charges for room and board, payments to ’victim support organisations’, and the strict enforcement of a ‘company store’ (canteen) monopoly will allow much of the money paid out in wages to be recouped in any case.

Having largely achieved a compliant mainstream prison population over the past few years. during phase 1 of the building of the ‘British Industrial Prison Complex,’ the state ultimately desires a situation where prisoners are either behind their doors (watching TV if they’re good boys and girls), or at work ‘producing’.

Work - consume - sleep. The ideal capitalist economy in microcosm.

By collaborating with the prison economy we are ultimately assisting in the expansion of the prison building programme (largely financed by the private sector,) and the imprisonment of greater numbers of working class people. We are also helping to undermine the wages and conditions of workers outside.

Everything that is happening in British prisons today, right down to things like higher phone tariffs as an incentive to go to work (the creation of needs and desires,) happened in America yesterday. Often we are dealing with the same corporations. for those who have bothered to look, there can be no surprises in current and future British penal policy (unless like the POA you’re too stupid to see it.)

These gulags only function in the way they do because of the foolish compliance of prisoners suffering from ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ (or the adoption of a selfish ‘kapo’ mentality.) We cook the food clean the landings, make the uniforms, bedding ,soap toothbrushes, in some cases we even help build the places. Imagine how different it would be if we refused to conspire in our own imprisonment. That’s my vision, not £30 a week and a TV set. compulsory labour is slavery, no matter what the pay and conditions, and i’m not going to be anybody’s slave.

We should avoid replicating the mistakes the wider labour movement has made in the last 100 years, allowing it to be completely co-opted and practically neutralised, by the adoption of authoritarian structures and an entirely reformist agenda. We don’t need Martin Narey’s consent to organise.

Appeal System in the Dock

THERE is a certain current of thought which supposes that prisons are full of people falsely protesting their innocence and probably living the 'high life' behind bars, while legally aided fat cats make a mockery of the judicial system to win their release on minor technicalities. This current of thought is very convenient for myopic politicians and the legal establishment, and like many examples of what is often referred to as the 'popular imagination' it probably has more to do with the opportunism of Right-wing journalists than innate public perception. None the less, it is undoubtedly the case that many people believe this sort of rubbish.

I am sure that there are plenty of criminals who go to trial wrongly protesting their innocence. Some of these will be acquitted, and the more successful they are as criminals (and consequently the more money they have made) the greater the chances of that, since they will be able to afford expensive lawyers, instead of having to rely on the dwindling legal aid system. But most of those coming before the criminal courts do not have money, and many who are genuinely innocent are wrongly convicted.

Following conviction, of course, we have an appeal system. But one only has to look at the amount of time spent in prison by those who have successfully challenged miscarriages of justice over the past couple of decades to see just how ineffective the appeal system is. Talk to any barrister, and even the most competent of them will not be able to put their hand on their heart (or wallet) and tell you that the system works effectively. Talk to any wrongfully convicted prisoner, and their response is likely to be more robustly effusive.

The fact is that following conviction, and certainly following the denial of appeal, any prisoner who continues to falsely protest their innocence would have to be stark staring mad. Who but those who feel the genuine weight of legal injustice would struggle on to fight their convictions without legal aid and sometimes without any legal help at all, with access to only the most basic law books, frustrated at every turn by the mandarins of the judicial system, and often knowing that fixed sentences are likely to be served long before any eventual appeal is successful?

Even more morally repugnant is the way that those protesting miscarriages of justice are doubly punished while they are in prison. Most Obviously, those maintaining their innocence, and consequently not addressing their 'offending behaviour do not get parole. If they are life sentence prisoners they may never be released, but even those spending fixed terms will spend longer, often much longer, in prison than if they were guilty of the crimes for which they had been locked-up. They will also serve their time in conditions of higher security than those who progress through the system by taking part in 'sentence planning Forget about the home-leaves and the town visits we frequently read about in the Right-wing press.

THE challenge to the system de by prisoners who refuse to take part in sentence planning and offending behaviour courses marks them out as troublesome and subversive. Many of those fighting miscarriages of justice often find themselves subject to sudden inter-prison moves (‘ghostings’) and periods of segregation, as well as other harassment.

Even on a day-to-day basis, wrongfully convicted prisoners suffer as a result of being penalised by the so-called ‘Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme’. This pernicious device was introduced in the mid 1990s as part of a package of repression, and effectively created a state-defied class-system in British prisons.

Under the scheme, prisoners are classified - ‘Basic’, ‘Standard’, or ‘Enhanced’. Depending on their general behaviour and overall level of compliance, with these categorisations defining the conditions they are held in and the ‘privileges’ they are allowed.

SINCE 1997, a willingness to take part in sentence planning and attend offending behaviour courses has been an integral part of the scheme, with those who refuse being denied ‘Enhanced’ status. This means that appellants are not only likely to spend longer in prison, and in conditions of greater security, but they will get less visits, less wages, poorer jobs, be able to spend less of their own money, be locked in their cells for longer, have poorer living facilities, less gym, and be penalised in a whole number of other petty and spiteful ways. Conformity is everything in prison, and those who do not conform absolutely will be punished.

In these circumstances only those with integrity, spirit, determination and patience in ample quantities continue to right to clear their names. The sheer awfulness of injustice gives many these qualities in abundance, but others are crushed, and driven to suicide or insanity by a system that is rotten to the core.

The simple fact is that prisoners who claim they are innocent very often are innocent. and the failings of legal system which cannot speedily address miscarriages of justice are being compounded by a penal system that torments those who are wrongly incarcerated.

Mark Barnsley HMP Durham

Tribune
29 December 2000

Day 2432

I wake shivering at around 7.00 am. Despite wearing all of the few items of clothing issued, the solitary blanket (not even a proper blanket at that) could not keep out the biting cold. But after several nights like this I have slept. and dreamt. Unusual, and, a mixed blessing, bringing back haunting memories of my former happy life, my children, my ex-partner. A life so far away now it's recollection in such vivid tones disturbs me. I rise from the iron bed frame, which creaks and groans as if in echo of how I feel. Everything around me is cold to the touch, most of all the bare stone floor. I put on prison issue slippers, the only footwear I'm allowed in the segregation unit. I wash my face in the cold water and begin exercising to try and get some warmth back into my bones. The Judas flap is opened for the first time of the day, and a screw peers in, flipping the light off and on.

It's Sunday, so the routine is running somewhat later than usual. At around 7.30 am some form of triangle is clattered, then around 8.15 am the door is unlocked for breakfast. I emerge from my cell to be greeted by a dozen screws competing to see who can pull the sourest face. I walk a few feet to the hotplate to collect my food, and then return to my cell. Disaster! I forgot to make an application for exercise, so I must spend the whole of the next 24 hours in the cell.

The cell is 13 foot x 7 foot with walls and ceiling of white, and bright fluorescent light overhead. There is a barred window with a narrow mesh cage outside the bars. Above this, cutting off the sky, is another cage. Apart from the bed there is a 'cardboard table' and 'chair', the latter unusable, the former not much better. There is also a stainless steel sink and a vile smelling toilet.

I eat my breakfast. I have been given no bread ration all the time I have been in the seg unit, nor have I been given my tea ration. I sip some cold water. I find my mind going back again and again to the dream. All my property has been withheld from me, I have absolutely nothing. I managed to get hold of a pen after a few days because I was required to fill out an official form, and am writing this on the back of an old envelope. Feeling cold again I do some more exercises and pace the cell to keep warm. Lunch is at 11.00 am, mushroom soup, it tastes of week old milk.

Outside snow is falling slowly through the bars of the roof cage. I can't see if it settles on the ground, all I can see is the stained concrete of the wall opposite my cell. Throughout the afternoon I wait for the weekly shower, a ritual whereby several screws stand around making offensive comments while a prisoner takes a hurried shower but I'm missed out of this. I haven't had a shower in the five days I've so far spent in the prison.

Also on Sunday afternoons is the weekly kit change, when replacement bedding and clothing is issued. The total issue is 2 sheets, 1 pillowcase, 2 towels, 2 pairs of underpants, 2 pairs of nylon socks, 2 tee shirts, and 1 boiler suit. The boiler suit is actually designed to be worn by High Risk prisoners in transit between prisoners, and should be worn over other clothing. I'm missed out of the kit exchange, also, the screws have been true to their word to 'stitch me up'. The final meal of the day is served just after 3.30 pm, leaving 16 hours until breakfast.

In the evening I spend an hour running the length of the cell, doing press-ups, sit-ups, etc - partly for exercise, partly to keep warm, and partly to have something to do. After this I wash out my spare pair of socks in the sink, hanging them on the bed frame to dry, though that may take a couple of days in this cold. I still have another few hours to kill before I turn in for the night, when the cold and boredom just get too much - about 8.00 pm.

I make up my bed carefully to take advantage as best I can of the meagre coverings. The blanket is actually a strip cell blanket, designed more for indestructibility than warmth, too pieces of nylon cloth sewn together, and scarcely bigger than the mattress. So first I lay down a sheet and tuck it in, then the blanket, over this I lay my two towels. Finally I cover these with my second sheet and tuck it in tightly. At just after 8.00 pm I turn out the light and slide myself, fully clothed, between the bottom sheet and the blanket, hoping I'll get a few hours sleep sometime during the night, and wondering how many more days I'll have to spend living like this.

Mark Barnsley, HMP Wakefield

No Justice in Europe

On the 29th of October three members of the European Commission of Human rights (ECHR), sitting in private and without any form of representation, ruled the Application of Mark Barnsley alleging 73 violations of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human rights (Right to a fair trial) inadmissible. No reasons have been given for this decision, and it is not appealable.

"The procedure for taking a case to the Human Rights Court is daunting and cumbersome. An applicant begins by writing to the European Commission of Human Rights at Strasbourg. The Commission filters out cases which are inadmissible...Commission staff have been receiving about 5,500 cases a year, of which only about 200 are declared admissible. In 1992 just 12 British applications were found admissible out of 222 submitted." Joshua Rozenberg, The Search For Justice. ?

There are a number of popular misconceptions about the ECHR, and even the vast majority of lawyers in this country do not have more than the vaguest idea of how it operates. Firstly, it should be made clear that the ECHR is not itself the European Court of Human Rights, but a lesser body which examines whether or not applications meet all the technical requirements, before either rejecting them (which it does in over 96% of cases) or accepting them for further action and possible eventual referral to the European Court (which it does in around 2% of cases.)

"There have been more than 20,000 applications to the Commission, but by July 1993 only 415 cases had been referred to the Human Rights Court." Joshua Rozenberg, The Search For Justice. ?

Another popular misconception is that the ECHR and/or the European Court are empowered to deal with miscarriages of justice. In fact neither body has this power, (the purpose of the former body is explained above,) even the European Court merely decides whether or not specific Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (in this case the right to a fair trial) have been violated. The European Court has no powers to quash convictions, order retrials, or even refer cases back to the domestic Court of Appeal. Ultimately the Commission and Judges are proposed by the various states and inevitably a number tend to be `establishment-minded'...The Commission is showing signs of applying increasingly severe admissibility criteria to staunch the flow of cases to the Court and thereby many very important cases have, for purely technical reasons, not been able to proceed." Luke Clements, European Human Rights.

In order to save time for the European Court the ECHR rejects a large number of applications on the pretext that they do not fulfil any of a number of technical criteria. Unfortunately, obtaining adequate legal information on what precisely is required is extremely difficult in this country, since so few lawyers understand måuch about the European Convention or the machinations of the ECHR, and in any case no legal aid is available for the purpose of advice or assistance in preparing applications. All that Mark Barnsley had to assist him were a couple of pages of notes hand-written by another prisoner.

One criteria which particularly applies here is that the ECHR will reject applications if they are not supported by full documentation (the onus is on the applicant to assume exactly which documentation the ECHR require.) In Mark's case, he was unable to supply the necessary supporting documentation precisely because, despite nearly 20 letters from Mark and his lawyers to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), they are still unlawfully refusing to hand it over. As the CPS know full well, without this documentation it was inevitable that Mark's application was doomed to failure. Legally and morally it is a ridiculous situation. It is regrettable that having already been denied the right of an appeal hearing against his conviction in this country, Mark has now been prevented from demonstrating before the European Court how the British State clearly violated his right to a fair trial.

Because all applications to the ECHR are covered by a confidentiality clause which forbids discussion of the applic tion, on penalty of it being ruled inadmissible, we have not hitherto been able to reveal the precise details of Mark's application, which alleged no less than 73 violations of Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. We believe that the allegations made in Mark's application are unassailable and provable.

They include the following:

1) That the Prosecution acted unlawfully to 'ambush' the Defence, by introducing extremely dubious 'evidence' (which should have been listed in advance) during the trial. Because of the way this 'evidence' was introduced the Defence were not in a position to call its own counter-evidence to refute it.

2) That the Prosecution did not supply copies of the evidence introduced during the trial to the Defence,and in one case even removed a page of potentially vital evidence from a medical report.

3) That there was a virulent press and television campaign which was hopelessly biased in favour of the Prosecution, and which helped to influence witnesses and prejudice the trial. The coverage featured interviews with the complainants and other Prosecution witnesses before they had given evidence, it was frequently hysterical, often inaccurate and mi leading, and at times claims were made by the media which went way beyond the Prosecution åcase at its worst, and which even 'led aspects of the Prosecution case'. The coverage also showed pictures of Mark in custody, and 2 photocopies of newspaper 'reports' published in Sheffield's The Star newspaper, entitled respectively; "Five Stabbed for Poking Fun at Girlfriend." and "Scarred For Life." were even included in the depositions.

4) That despite numerous written requests by the Defence, and court rulings supporting these requests, a large amount of evidence which should have been served prior to trial was deliberately withheld by the Prosecution. This evidence includes the following:

a) A copy of the Crime Report.

b) Copies of any draft statements.

c) Notes taken during the preparation of statements.

d) Notes taken during the preparation or examination of exhibits and interviews.

e) Details of, and documents relating to, the six people arrested prior to the arrest of Mark Barnsley.

f) Copies of Police notebooks.

g) Details of the previous convictions and/or findings of guilt and/or disciplinary proceedings against anyone involved in the case.

h) A copy of the search warrant.

i) A copy of the `Search Register.'

j) Photocopies of the original hand-written statements.

k) Transcripts of any 999 calls made in connection with the incident.

I) Copies of photographs.

5) In their Police statements a number of Prosecution witnesses named a student who was involved in the incident. The Defence have reason to believe that this person may have vital evidence about the attack on Mark, and the production and subsequent disappearance of the knife. He was a friend of most of the other students involved (including the complainants), and in fact on the same course as some of them, but despite the fact that the Police arrived within minutes of the incident, (and that 5 of his friends had been injured) this man left the scene, along with 2 other student witnesses prior to their arrival. No subsequent statements were apparently taken from these three men, despite the fact that they were named by a number of other witnesses. The Prosecution made an undertaking to the court that they and the Police would do everything possible to find these individuals. The Defence alleges that because it was not in their interest the Police and CPS made no realistic attempt to locate these men, or alternatively that they knew of their whereabouts and deliberately withheld this information from the Defence.

6) There were 5 charges on the indictment against Mark: five counts of `Wounding with intent, contrary to Section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861.' No alternative lesser charges (e.g. Section 20 wounding) were recorded on the indictment, and even when the judge asked before the trial if the Prosecution were prepared to consider offering lesser charges they declined to do so. Yet, after Mark had given evidence and the Defence case was effectively over, the Prosecution asked that the judge offer alternative lesser charges of Section 20 wounding to the jury in addition to the 5 Section 18 charges. The jury subsequently found Mark `not guilty' of Section 18 wounding in respect of counts 1, 4 and 5, but `guilty' of Section 20 wounding. Thus, Mark was convicted of 3 offences with which he was never charged, to which he did not have the opportunity to offer pleas or a defence and which were not even formally added to the indictment.

7) That representatives of the State (namely prison officers) wilfully destroyed or stole evidence.

8) Under British law one of the Prosecution's legal obligations is that they serve the Defence with a `Case Summary,' which outlines their evidence, to which a Defence can be offered (or not, in the case of a `guilty' plea.) In this case the Prosecution did not submit a full and proper summary of their case, or of the evidence they intended to use. The Prosecution deliberately misled the Defence in order to prevent them from being in a realistic position to challenge the dubious unlisted `evidence' the Prosecution were allowed to introduce during the trial.

9) That at least one member of the jury violated his conditions of jury service, and had a vested interest in the outcome of the case to the detriment of the Defence.

10) That the Prosecution were allowed to rely on so-called `expert' evidence from `experts' who either had no qualifications in the subject they were talking about, or who exceeded their area of expertise.

11) That the Prosecution deliberately misled and misinformed one of these `experts' in order to prejudice his report in their favour.

12) That the Judge displayed a clear bias against the Defence throughout the trial, that he suppressed evidence, ignored perjury misled and misinformed the jury by misrepresenting and misquoting witness evidence, and that he ultimately ignored the jury's verdict and Mark's mitigation when passing sentence.

13) That the student witnesses openly colluded with each other, and discussed their evidence with each other, before and after giving it in court.

14) That a Police officer involved in the case, on 2 occasions, deliberately lied to the Defence solicitors in an attempt to suppress evidence of drug use by the complainants.

15) That the CPS also attempted to suppress this evidence (blood samples) by delaying access to it in the knowledge that it would deteriorate and in the belief that it would be destroyed.

16) That the Prison authorities deliberately undermined the preparation of Mark's Defence by transferring him out of his normal prison region, suddenly, in unusual circumstances, for no valid reason, and against the requests of himself and his solicitor. They did this shortly before his trial, at a time when they knew it would cause maximum damage by preventing pre-arranged visits with medical and forensic experts and with Mark's lawyers.

17) That the Prison authorities unlawfully opened mail between Mark and his solicitor, and monitored and recorded all Mark's legal phone calls.

18) That Mark was questioned by the Police without the presence of his solicitor or any form of legal representation.

19) That during the first 24 hours Mark was in custody he did not have the benefit of a qualified solicitor.

20) That the Prosecution, the Police, or their agents `doctored' photographs in order to mislead the Defence.

21) That lawyers acting for Mark (his barrister and QC) were negligent in the preparation of his defence, and incompetent in its presentation, that they acted contrary to his instruction, failed to attend conference, misled and misinformed him, betrayed client confidentiality, kept documents and evidence from him, lost documents and evidence, that they failed to return legal documents, and that they took important legal decisions without consulting either Mark or his solicitor. These then are some of the alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, but there are in addition many other matters which significantly contributed to Mark's miscarriage of justice without technically violating the narrow terms of the Convention. Such as, for example, the `planting' and fabrication of evidence, and the perjury of the complainants and other Prosecution witnesses. While it is highly regrettable that the ECHR are not prepared to allow Mark the opportunity to argue his case in the European Court, and to present evidence which supports the allegations that his rights to a fair trial were deliberately violated by agents of the British state, Mark's struggle for justice goes on.

"The odds were so heavily stacked against me in making this application that what has happened, though disappointing, is no great surprise. How can anyone be expected to get justice in the European Court when no legal aid is available to help with making an application, the technicalities of which many lawyers find daunting. Also, where the Prison authorities, the CPS and other arms of the British legal and judicial establishment have been allowed to withhold vital papers and evidence needed to support the application, and to interfere in other ways with my ability to make it. That the Police and CPS deliberately suppressed and withheld evidence prior to my trial; that the Judge misled and manipulated the jury, and suppressed and misrepresented evidence; that every attempt possible was made by the British State to obstruct justice; these things are, I believe, unassailable facts, and I regret that I have been denied the opportunity to present the clear and irrefutable evidence which supports these allegations to the European Court. My fight for justice will not be thwarted by a cabal of Strasbourg bureaucrats. My struggle will continue."

Mark Barnsley, Full Sutton Prison.

Mark has been invited to submit his case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), and an application is currently being prepared which will hopefully contain a great deal of evidence not heard by the jury at Mark's trial. However, having already conspired with the Police and Judiciary to fit Mark up, and having effectively contributed to the sabotage of his application to the ECHR, the CPS are continuing to withhold the documents and evidence Mark needs for his application to the CCRC. This is the same evidence which should lawfully have been served prior to Mark's original trial in July 1995. We demand that the CPS finally hand over this evidence.

"It is wrong to keep innocent people in prison. That is a truth so basic that no amount of politics, of bureaucratic expediency and judicial casuistry, can alter it. Yet the shaming fact is that the continued incarceration of the innocent is nothing less than national policy. There can be no sadder reflection on the state of Britain today than that there seems to be no one in the legal or political hierarchies with the moral fibre, with the simple human decency to want to do anything about it."

Prison Harassment

Prison harassment is a daily problem for those in Britain's jails. Below is an account from Mark Barnsley about some of the difficulties faced. With the repatriation of Irish POW's, political activists in British prisons are more isolated than ever. Along with victims of miscarriages of justice they are regular targets for victimisation by the prison authorities, who (contrary to the 'impartial' image they try to present publicly) attempt to brutalise and isolate them and to prevent them achieving justice.

Over the past 4 and a half years the prison authorities have played their part in contributing to my injustice, both before my trial and since. In March 1995 on the very day my barrister and solicitor were due to visit me for a pre-trial conference, and when the prison authorities had already been informed that I was due to be visited by medical and forensic experts, I was 'ghosted' to another prison. This move, at a key- time in the preparation of my defence was clearly designed as an act of sabotage, and it had the devastating effect planned.

Legal documents have frequently been unlawfully opened by the prison censors, and legal phone calls have been monitored and recorded. Evidence has been stolen or destroyed and legal documents withheld. Computer discs containing legal documents have been deliberately erased, and on a day to day basis my prison conditions and mygeneral treatment is worsened by my struggle for justice.

It is perhaps some indication of the growing success of the campaign that there has been a rise in the level of harassment I am receiving. Prison security are openly becoming hysterical about the campaign and trying to isolate me and prevent me from communicating with the outside world. In the first 3 days of February for example, 5 of the 8 letters I posted were ' stopped' on various spurious pretexts and I am being prevented from doing legal work and typing letters. One of the letters stopped was to 'The Socialist' newspaper, protesting at the imprisonment of 2 men who were attacked by racist thugs. The reason given for the stopping of this letter was that it was 'not serious comment of crime'. I think the individuals concerned not to mention the family of Stephen Lawrence, might disagree.

The letter reads as follows: "I was appalled to read, in issue 96 of ' The Socialist' of the convictions of Taj Ahmed and Roberto Brollini for defending themselves against a racist attack. The convictions are particularly disgusting considering the previous machete attack on Taj, when he was left with very serous injuries, including puncture wounds to his face, neck and lung and a shoulder wound requiring 112 stitches and 24 staple stitches. The racist thugs who carried out this attack were given prison sentences of 12 months imprisonment, the same as Taj and Roberto received for merely defending themselves.

Compare Taj's injuries to those sustained by the 2 middle class students, who together with 13 of their friends attacked me in Sheffield in 1994, while I was with my 6 week old daughter. These injuries, which they sustained during their vicious and prolonged attack upon me, were two 3cm wounds to the chest of one of them, and also two 18cm cuts to the forearm, and a 3cm wound to the stomach of the other, plus a 1cm superficial cut to his elbow. After being fitted-up I received prison sentences of 12 years for allegedly causing these injuries, whilst myself sustaining a 3cm head wound, a 3cm face wound, a 3cm hand wound, a broken nose, broken and damaged teeth, broken ribs, and a large number of other injuries.

In 1996, the middle class louts who killed ex-Liverpool docker Eric Cobourne, for no other reason than that they didn't think he 'belonged' in the posh area they lived in, received sentences of 18 months - 2 years (for the attack on Mr. Cobourne and other violent offences). Stephen Lawrence's murderers have gone scot free, whilst Satpal Ram has so far spent 13 years in prison for killing a racist attacker in self-defence.

The convictions of Taj and Roberto show yet again there is one law for the rich and privileged and for racist thugs, and one for the rest of us! If Taj and Roberto are reading this, I'd like to say, "Be strong brothers. One day we will all achieve justice". The stopping of this letter is an outrageous abuse of power by the prison authorities, who have now set themselves up as Thought Police' when it comes to censoring my correspondence. While not all fascists have swastikas tattooed on their foreheads, most of them would seem to have a predilection for wearing uniforms.

I am now seeking legal advice on the matter and would ask all organisations and publications who find the behaviour of the prison authorities repugnant to expose it loudly and publicly. I refuse to be intimidated by these latest attempts to silence me and I will continue to fight for justice, for myself and others."

Full Sutton Prison Riots

The Prison Service were upset after losing a prison to the control of prisoners. Mark was called as a witness for the defence for those who were accused of 'prison mutiny' and spent 9 days at HMP Durham in March for the show trial held in Newcastle. The prisoners knew they would get a hard time in there and they were right.

At HMP Durham Mark and another prisoner went on an immediate blanket protest, flatly refusing to wear prison uniform.

1. Mark and the other witnesses were kept segregated.

2. They were locked up for 24 hours a day.

3. In 9 days Mark was only given 2 hours exercise and that was in the rain with only a blanket to wear.

4. Mark was kept in Category A conditions when he is a Category B prisoner.

5. Mark was allowed only 1 shower in 9 days.

This attempt to intimidate prisoners backfired for the prison. On receiving news, the Justice for Mark Barnsley campaign acted on it straight away. The prison received an overwhelming amount of faxes and phone calls from all over the place, such as Belfast, Dublin, Leeds, London, Doncaster, Huddersfield, Preston, Madrid, Malta, Greece, France and the Basque Country. The Durham Echo also printed a piece about the situation.

The governor at HMP Durham ended up with egg on his face. This was a really effective show of support for Mark and other prisoners. Mark has a serious amount of support which became evident to the governor of Durham Prison

Repression in British Prisons

In 1994 a number of prison officers sat playing ‘Scrabble’ in the Special Security Unit of Whitemoor Prison in Cambridgeshire, England. Meanwhile their charges, mainly Irish POW’s, and supposedly amongst the most closely guarded prisoners in the British prison system, were busy escaping. Six months later, three prisoners practically walked out of Parkhurst maximum security prison on the Isle of Wight, Britain’s ‘Alcatraz’.

The two events were to signal the start of a wave of unprecedented repression in the British prison system, the aim of which is to crush prisoner resistance once and for all.

The seeds for the repression had been planted after the 1990 Strangeways revolt, Britain’s biggest prison uprising to date.While some humanitarian concessions were introduced as a tactical holding measure in the wake of the revolt, the British State began to develop strategies and make plans to ensure that there would never be another Strangeways.

After the initial uprising, Strangeways had quickly developed into a roof-top protest, which to the great embarrassment of the State, dragged on for weeks in the direct view of the press and public. Roof-top protests had in fact been going on in British prisons for many years, and were always one of the more spectacular acts of prisoner resistance. Changes in prison architecture following Strangeways have made them a thing of the past.

Along with changes to the design of prison roofs, and ensuring that no parts of modern prisons could be viewed from outside the walls, the architectural changes reflected the security lessons learned from past uprisings. Prison ‘wings’ (cell blocks) were designed with maximum emphasis on observation, security and control. Intrinsic to this was the increased use of CCTV cameras.

New strategies for dealing with the media were also developed, the ‘classic’ Prison Service line in relation to prison uprisings has now become that they are caused by prisoners who resent attempts to stop them taking drugs.

Following the Parkhurst and Whitemoor escapes two carefully ‘stacked’ reports were commissioned by the Home Secretary, these are known after their respective authors as the Woodcock and Learmont reports. Woodcock had previously been Britain’s highest-ranking cop, so his antipathy towards prisoners could be relied upon. Learmont was an ageing ‘Colonel Blimp’ character, who in his own words had never given a moments thought to prisons or prisoners before receiving the Home Secretaries phone call appointing him.

Predictably, the 2 reports recommended the introduction of a huge number of repressive ‘security’ measures. Yet, to a large extent both Woodcock and Learmont were simply stooges to a pre-planned agenda. According to Woodcock, his recommendations were only ever supposed to apply to the Special Security Unit of Whitemoor Prison, yet the Home Secretary immediately announced they were to be ‘phased in’ throughout the entire prison system. Many of the measures, such as greater restrictions on prisoners’ property (so-called ‘volumetric control’) mirror those introduced in U$ prisons over the past years.

In fact the maximum security prisons were actually among the last jails where the repressive changes were introduced, simply because it was anticipated that it was here that resistance would be greatest.

One of the earliest prisons where the first of a sliding scale of ‘Woodcock recommendations’ (in this case mainly affecting visits) was introduced early in 1995 was the privately run (Wakenhut) Doncaster Prison. Woodcock and Learmont actually toured the prison on the very day the new measures came into force, only to be greeted with a solid prisoners’ work-strike, the torching of one of the wings and a range of other acts of resistance.

The eventual total introduction of Woodcock’s repressive recommendations, and those subsequently introduced in Learmonts’ name, did meet with substantial resistance, not least the full scale uprising by 200 prisoners at Full Sutton maximum security prison in January 1997. There had been more minor uprisings and work-strikes at Full Sutton in response to the repression as early as 1995, but the uprising of 1997 caused £2,000,000 worth of damage, and left the ‘flagship’ prison running at half capacity for an entire year.

Along with the physical ‘security’ restrictions were a number of cleverly calculated ‘psychological’ initiatives, the most successful and far-reaching of which is the so-called ‘Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme’, which gave a new ‘spin’ to the age-old ‘divide and rule’ concept by introducing a state-formulated class system into prisons. The scheme splits prisoners into ‘Basic’, ‘Standard’ and ‘Enhanced’ (known as ‘The Enchanted’ depending on their behaviour and level of compliance with the system. At first there was little difference between the categories, but the gaps have widened over the years, as has the level of ‘compliance’ required.

A prisoner on ‘Basic’ will be held in virtual (or even actual) Segregation Unit conditions, even though he or she may not have committed any disciplinary offence. They will get no ‘privileges’, one or maybe two half-hour visits per month (possibly behind glass), and only £2.50 per week to spend at most (a 12g packet of tobacco is more than £2). By contrast, a prisoner who grovels his way to ‘Enchanted’ status, will have a TV, maybe cooking facilities, four or more visits per month of up to two and a half hours duration, £15 per week ‘private cash’ plus ‘enhanced wages’ and a range of other ‘privileges’. In some prisons, the scheme has been so successful there are even different levels of ‘Enhanced’. In terms of prisoner resistance the ‘Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme’ has, even viewed alone, been catastrophic. The other most damaging weapon of the state has been the phasing-in of in-cell TVs (in conjunction with the above scheme.)

Six years after the Whitemoor escape, and only 10 years after the ‘new dawn’ of prison liberalisation Strangeways supposedly heralded, the cycle of prison repression has once again virtually turned full circle, and ‘Phase 1’ is almost complete.

The careful planning that went into the crushing of prisoner resistance was not to be squandered by sparking-off full-scale uprisings across the country. The repression was introduced slowly, with the worst of it only coming after the repatriation of Irish POW’s, who made up the biggest block of militant prisoners in the system. The tactic most commonly used has been controlled provocation and containment, whereby some repression is introduced, and those resisting are targeted and moved out of the particular prison. By this and other methods the State have eventually clawed back almost all the concessions to humanity that long-term prisoners fought so hard to gain in the past, and achieved a largely compliant mainstream population (’Stepford Prisoners’) ready for ‘Phase 2’ of the building of the British Prison Industrial Complex.

In terms of dealing with prison militants, the State has of course sought to isolate and punish them, holding up their ill-treatment as an example to other prisoners tempted to stray from the path of full compliance. The ultimate ‘big stick’ was (and to some extent still is) Woodhill Control Unit, where a small number of ‘persistently troublesome’ prisoners are held in shockingly inhumane and brutal conditions. However, Woodhill has not been without it’s problems from the State’s point of view. There has been continual resistance from those allocated there, and solidarity from both other prisoners (a work strike at Full Sutton in 1999 for example) and prisoners support groups outside. Woodhill represents a clear target for prison protest, and has drawn the attention of human rights organisations like ‘Amnesty International’. Because of this the Prison Service is tending to return to it’s previous policy of dispersing prison militants to Segregation Units scattered around the prison estate, and moving them at regular intervals (‘The Roundabout’ or ‘Ghost-train’).

A relatively small number of ‘trouble-makers’ can be dealt with quite easily, and as brutally and inhumanely as is considered necessary, so long as there is overall compliance from the mainstream prison populace. Regretably, this has currently been achieved to a large and unprecedented extent.

With the mainstream population increasingly ‘locked-down’, cowed, alienated from each other, and placated with in-cell TV, the prison system is now in a position to cope with the vast numbers of people repressive legislation ‘outside’ will incarcerate within it. Phase 2 of the prison strategy, which is already ‘seeping-in’, will see the greater exploitation of this growing captive labour force as slaves. Prisoners will either be at work ‘producing’ or they will be locked behind their doors. Work – Watch TV – Sleep.

That is the future the State sees for us, and as in America, the future is Private, with some of the same companies that lock up prisoners in the $tates currently funding the British Government’s massive prison building programme.

While we are certainly at a low-point in terms of the British prison struggle, resistance will always exist and endure. History shows us that revolutions have a habit of breaking out when the Powerful least expect them. Even slaves revolt.

Mark Barnsley WA2897

UK Prisoners call for Solidarity Action with Turkish Hunger Strikers

Prisoner-activists Mark Barnsley (HMP Wakefield) and John Bowden (HMP Bristol) have issued the following statement:-

Solidarity with the Turkish Prisoners

On 30 June 22 year old Zehra Kulaksic died following 221 days without solid food. She was the fifth person to die on the hunger strike being staged by TAYAD (the Association of Families and Friends of Political Prisoners) in solidarity with Turkish political prisoners. Her death brings to 53 the total of those who have either died on the death fast or were mudered by the state in its vicious onslaught against protesting prisoners on 19 December 2000. The prisoners are continuing their protest against the regime's attempts to destroy them by confining them to isolation cells in the new F-type prisons.

Call for International Solidarity

Many of you will be following the courageous life and death struggle currently taking place in the Turkish prisons.In the FIES units of Spain (equivalent to our CSC units) prisoners have recently launched an initiative in support of the Turkish prison struggle and in support of their own 3 demands. This initiative,which is supported by prisoners in France,Greece and by Basque and Kurdish prisoners,is in the form of a hunger protest on the first Saturday of each month.The three demands of the FIES prisoners are as follows:

1.An end to the FIES units

2.An end to "dispersion",whereby prisoners are moved away from their families

3.The release of all terminally ill prisoners,and those who have spent more than 220 years in prison because of their political beliefs and militant attitude.

In solidarity with our comrades in the Turkish prisons and those fighting for justice throughout the world,we propose the launch of an initiative along the same lines as the Spanish prisoners; a food strike on the first Saturday of every month.

Since the Whitemoor and Parkhurst escapes of 1994 and 1995 thre has been a concerted attempt to crush the British prison struggle once and for all;a war of attrition the state has all but won.By making this simple act of solidarity we are taking the first step towards renewing the struggle abd asserting our humanity and our defiance.

Like the FIES prisoners,we are proposing three reasonable and achievable demands of our own:

1. A mimimum of one hour's daily exercise in the open air. It is appalling that at a time when prisoners are once again being locked two and three to a cell,the stautory allowance of daily exercise has been reduced to only half an hour.

2.The right of all prisoners to wear their own clothes.Twenty years after Bobby Sands and his comrades died on hunger strike,the right of prisoners to wear their own clothes is still not enshrined in the prison rules.Beacuse of this ,governors regard the wearing of civilian clothes as a "privilege" which can be withdrawn at any time.This is increasingly happening with prisoners placed on "basic." 3. The abolition of compulsory prison work.We are currently seeing the growing exploitation of prisoners labour by private companies and by the state. If prisoners choose to work in return for remuneration they should have that choice-ut compulsory work is nothing less than slavery.

These are the three demands that we propose.We ask that all militant prisoners,all those who have not been crushed by state repression,all those not bought off by the arse-lickers charter of the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme,all those who have an instinct for solidarity and the courage to stand upagainst oppression,support this proposal. Our numbers may be few but they have the potential to grow. Spread the word. Support the protest. The fightback starts here.

Mark Barnsley and John Bowden.

For more information,contact Nick (Justice for Mark BarnsleyCampaign) on 07944 522001. E mail;barnsleycampaign@hotmail.com www.freemarkbarnsley.com

Letters of solidarity to John and Mark:

John Bowden
HMP Bristol
19 Cambridge Road
Bristol BS7 8PS UK

Mark Barnsley
HMP Wakefield
5 Love Lane
Wakefield
West Yorkshire WF2 9AG UK


translate | support
about | contact


top of page