www.sclomax.co.uk

  
     
 

James (Shay) Power

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.

Although Power 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.

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Power have £12,000; the deposits spanned a large period of time and when money was paid into the account it was soon withdrawn.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 (which is very rare), 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.

For more details please visit www.jamespower.g3z.com (the official Justice For James Power campaign website) and/or contact me. I run the campaign.

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