Peter Carine
Peter
Carine was convicted in December 2002 for allegedly playing an instrumental
role in attempting to smuggle £22 million worth of cocaine into Britain. He
was jailed, along with his brother-in-law Christopher Barrett-Jolley (the
alleged mastermind behind the operation), for twenty years. However, Peter
maintains he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice and is determined to
clear his name. This website has been set up, along with the Justice For
Peter Carine campaign group, to inform the public of the startling facts of
this case,
During the Autumn of 2001, Christopher Barrett-Jolley claimed to be working
for an organisation he called “Air America”, which he
alleged was a branch of the CIA. With an identification pass allegedly
obtained from a group of Americans, he chartered a Boeing 707 freight plane, in Nigeria,
telling the owners that he could not divulge his client’s details. He claimed he was intending to transport “security
documents.”
We know the identities of those who Peter Carine claim were from “Air America.” E-mails written by one of the men describe how
the other two have been in prison in the USA. Research has confirmed that
the two men have spent time in federal prisons, with one having been released
recently.
The terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001 delayed the flight from Belgrade, where the plane had undergone repairs, to Jamaica.
Travelling with Bartlett-Jolley was his brother-in-law, Peter Carine, an
employee of the company who owned the aeroplane and a Serbian man named
Nikolai Luzaic.
On 11 October 2001 the plane travelled to Jamaica. It arrived in the early
hours of the following day. That same day Customs and Excise officers in London received a tip off from a solicitors in Birmingham, which said
it was acting on behalf of Nikolai Luzaic. Later, Nikolai Luzaic himself
contacted Customs from Jamaica
to say that there would be an attempt to smuggle 500 kg of cocaine. In fact
it was 271 kg which was actually on board the plane.
On 16 October the plane left Jamaica,
to return to Southend. Nikolai Luzaic updated Customs at that time, with a
telephone call from on board the plane, telling staff that the drop off would
be on the runway at Southend. The cargo would, he claimed, be collected by a
gang who were to be waiting in a nearby graveyard.
Customs and Excise were waiting for the drop off. They seized the cocaine but
failed to find anyone waiting to collect it. Barrett-Jolley and Peter Carine
were arrested, along with two other men, and stood trial. Only Barrett-Jolley
and Peter were convicted.
Peter claimed he unwittingly became involved in the plot. He denies ever
having conspired to smuggle drugs. However, it was argued at trial that
e-mails sent between Barrett-Jolley and Peter during the summer of 2001
showed they were conspiring to commit the crime, even though the contents of
the e-mails remain unknown. Is it so unreasonable to presume that two
brothers-in-law could e-mail one another with something other than crime in
mind? The case of Huckerby and Power vs Regina
(2002) at the Court of Appeal bears strong similarities with Peter’s case. Huckerby and Power were convicted of conspiring to
commit armed robbery partly on the basis of telephone calls. It was alleged
the two men had created their plot during these ‘conspiracy calls’, even though what was said during the calls could never be
proven. In December 2004 the two men’s convictions were quashed when appeal
judges heavily criticised the evidence of the telephone calls, arguing “the
summing-up of the judge [the trial judge] would better have instructed the jury to ignore
the telephone calls altogether than to have left to them the opportunity to
draw inferences along the lines articulated by the prosecution in
cross-examination …”
It is a shame that the judge’s summing up at Peter’s trial did not instruct the jury to ignore the evidence of the e-mails.
Barrett-Jolley had a sum of £55,000 paid into his bank account at around the
time of the smuggling attempt, which was allegedly consistent with him
engaging in large-scale criminal activity. This money was paid into the
account, it is claimed, in order to pay for the chartering of the plane.
However, Peter did not seem to gain anything from his alleged involvement.
This begs the question of whether he was actually involved or whether he was
an innocent man who got caught up in the actions of others.
A number of issues call into question the reliability of the main piece of
evidence used against Peter. The main evidence was the word of Nikolai
Luzaic, the Serbian informant.
At the time of the drug smuggling attempt, Luzaic was wanted in connection
with trafficking drugs from Holland to Britain. During the trial it was also
shown he had made attempts to obtain nuclear weapons.
Luzaic never stood trial for his part in the plot, although that is to be
expected seeing as though he became an informant. However, he also never gave
evidence in court or produced so much as a statement. In any criminal trial
it is important that the main prosecution witness is present so that the defence
can cross-examine him or her. Due to the fact Luzaic was not present (his
whereabouts are actually a complete mystery) the defence could not question
his reliability as a witness and as Luzaic what involvement, if any, Peter
Carine had in the operation. Barrett-Jolley’s
involvement was not in dispute but there was not a shred of evidence, other
than the so-called conspiracy e-mails, to suggest Peter had planned the plot
with his brother-in-law. Peter’s presence on the plane does not prove he was
in the know about
what was occurring.
It is curious that Luzaic should disappear without testifying, when it is
known he is wanted in connection with other offences. One has to question
whether there was a deal between Customs and Excise and Luzaic in which Luzaic
offered to provide information in exchange for immunity from prosecution for
other offences. Luzaic would certainly not turn informer unless he expected
something in return. If he was granted immunity from prosecution then would
it not be in his interests to create an overly elaborate account of events,
which was not necessarily reflective of the truth?
For further details please visit www.petercarine.g3z.com
To return to the Cases of Interest index please click here
To return to my home page please click here
|