James (Shay) Power
The following was written shortly after the quashing of the
conviction. Sadly Shay died one year after his release:
It is with great pleasure that I can announce the Court of Appeal
has overturned the convictions of both James Power and his co-defendant
Graham Huckerby.
On 21 December 2004 the court
ruled that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory and that both
should be released. On this day Power left Lowdham Grange prison a free man.
Sadly in December 2005 James Power died. Despite the conviction being
overturned and despite James’ tragic death, 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.
The following is information about the case, which I prepared prior to the
appeal hearing:
On 14 March 2002 James Power,
known as Shay, was convicted, alongside Graham Huckerby, of conspiring to
commit armed robbery. Both men were sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment.
£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’
The Prosecution claimed that Power was the handler for the £6.6 million
stolen during an armed robbery at the Midland Bank Clearing Centre in Salford in 1995.
What evidence did they have to prove this?
Power’s finances allegedly improved following the robbery. The
prosecution pointed to bank deposits totalling £12,000. However, at no point
did Power have £12,000; the deposits spanned a large period of time and when
money was paid into the account it was soon withdrawn. The prosecution
informed the court of money paid into the account, but not the money paid
out. Between 1991 and 1996 Power always had money in his account, with money
being paid in and out frequently.
Power and co-accused Huckerby made numerous alleged ‘conspiracy’ telephone
calls to one another in 1995, the year of the robbery. The men were
occasional drinking partners and both claim the very brief phone calls were
of a social nature to ask the other man to go for a drink.
The evidence presented only showed calls made in 1995, when itemised billing
was introduced. Calls had been exchanged as far back in time as the 1980’s.
Without transcripts of the conversations little weight should be placed on
such information. It is more than a possibility that crime was never the
subject of conversation and without proof of the contrary this information
should not have been admissible as ‘evidence’.
Undercover officers frequented local pubs to speak with their suspects and on
numerous occasions in 1996 an officer spoke with a drunken Shay Power. The
officer, ‘Barry’, posed as a disgruntled security guard and asked Power if he
knew of anyone who could help successfully rob his van. Power told ‘Barry’
that he knew of a group of criminals known as ‘the London mob.’ The
mob has not been in any way connected to the 1995 robbery so how is Power’s
knowledge of them relevant?
Power might not have considered a robbery until ‘Barry’ suggested it. Power
did not attempt to gain contact with ‘Barry’ and did not even recognise him
at a later stage, so the conversations did not leave a profound impression.
Power’s talk of being able to help pull off a robbery was a case of bravado
under the influence of alcohol to make him sound more interesting. No
accurate records of the conversations exist and both men were very drunk. The
conversations were only written up on the morning after which they took
place.
Power did not commit any crime
Did you know?
* Despite £6.6 million having been stolen not a single penny of the money has
been recovered. Where is that money?
* The Volga Operation, as the police investigation into the robbery was
known, was one of the most complex cases Greater Manchester Police have ever
dealt with. They believed a gang who were not local, but who were capable of
executing a highly planned crime were responsible. Two local men were
convicted.
* Despite a reward for £250,000 none of the raiders have been traced. Both
Power and Huckerby continue to deny knowing who was involved in the robbery.
* The police had to get at least one conviction because of the huge amount of
money stolen. It would not have looked good for their statistics if no one
was jailed. Despite failing to find the robbers Power and Huckerby were
convicted, BUT only after a previous trial had failed. The jury at this trial
failed to reach a verdict such are the weaknesses in the evidence in this
case. Therefore the evidence against the men is by no means clear-cut.
* The Court of Appeal must quash a conviction if, when considering all the
facts, there is a lurking doubt as to whether or not an appellant is guilty.
Shay spent over two years in prison for a crime he had no involvement in.
To return to the Cases of Interest index please click here
To return to my home page please click here
|