www.sclomax.co.uk

  
     
 

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

   
 
  Website created by S. C. Lomax in September 2004.
For any technical problems please contact me by clicking here