Graham Huckerby
It is
with great pleasure that I can announce the Court of Appeal has overturned
the convictions of both Graham Huckerby and his
co-defendant James Power.
On 21 December 2004 the court ruled that the convictions were unsafe and
unsatisfactory and that both should be released. On this day Huckerby left Dovegate prison a
free man.
Although Huckerby is free I will be keeping this
page on my website because it is my sincere hope that if people learn about
this case and other cases then they might realise how easily miscarriages of
justice can occur and maybe that way we will see some change. I shall soon be
adding some information about what the appeal judges said regarding this
case.
On 14 March 2002 Graham Huckerby was convicted,
alongside James Power, of conspiring to commit armed robbery. £6.6 million
was stolen in 1995 from a security van at the Midland Bank Clearing Centre in
Salford, Greater Manchester. Several masked robbers, armed with shotguns,
executed a well planned operation and none were ever captured. When a large
amount of money is stolen a conviction is needed to prevent public criticism
and satisfy Government statistics.
The evidence against Huckerby was incredibly weak.
He came to the attention of the police because he was the driver of the
security van from which the £6.6 million was stolen. Huckerby
has always maintained he was not pretending to be a victim of the armed
robbery who only complied with the demands of the robbers because he feared
his colleague would be killed and under duress with a shotgun pointed at him.
The 2004 appeal hearing innocently explained why the police thought Huckerby could have been lying. It was shown that at the
time of the robbery the driver was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD). The disorder affects a person’s
mind so much so that they cannot be expected to give accurate information.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 does state that suspects who are
suffering from mental health disorders, as defined under the Mental health
Act, do provide misleading information without them being aware of this and
so they might incorrectly be viewed to be lying. Huckerby
was affected by the disorder because he had witnessed an earlier assault on
one of his colleagues. Recalling this earlier incident he felt he had to do
what he was told. After all he did not want his colleague to be killed.
It was shown that during 1995 and 1996 Huckerby
deposited approximately £2400 into his bank account. This was considered
suspicious because the robbery took place in 1995. However, on 14 August 1995
Huckerby’s mother drew £600 from her bank account
and gave it to her son, with Huckerby paying it
into his account that same day. In 1993 Huckerby
lent a friend a approximately £1500. In 1995 and
1996 the friend repaid the money.
Following the robbery Huckerby began to enjoy what
they called a ‘jet set’ lifestyle. In 1996 he visited the USA and stayed with
a member of his family who lived in the country. In 1999 he travelled to
Corfu for one week. Is this lifestyle beyond the means of someone who has not
conspired to commit armed robbery?
Huckerby had allegedly bought ‘expensive’ gifts for
his daughter’s birthday in October 1995. ‘How could
he do this without having gained money illegally? [my
words, not the exact phraseology of the prosecution], the jury were asked.
The gifts were a pair of Kickers shoes, two CD’s
and some perfume. Though they might not have been cheap they were within the
price range for someone who could afford to lend a friend £1500 without
resorting to crime.
To further demonstrate Huckerby’s involvement in
the robbery, the prosecution counsel showed that he had received
approximately £1000 in cash in May 1995, two months before the crime, which
they alleged was a ‘sweetener for the robbery’. In May 1995 Huckerby had moved house and, as a gift, his parents gave
him £1000 to help fund the costs of furnishing his new home.
Clearly the financial aspects of the prosecution’s
case can all be innocently explained.
It was claimed Huckerby was agitated and restless
on the day before the robbery but his daughter was in hospital and no one
knew what was wrong with her. So of course Huckerby
would seem agitated and restless!
Huckerby made several calls to co-defendant James
Power in 1995. The Court of Appeal has stated that discussion of these calls
should not have taken place as they are not evidence of any crime. So they
made calls to one another? Well they used to occasionally drink with one
another so what does it matter if they phoned one another? Does this mean
they are criminals? See my James Power page for more details of this issue.
For more details please visit www.innocent.org.uk and/or contact me.
To return to the Cases of Interest index please click here
To return to my home page please click here
|