www.sclomax.co.uk

  
     
 

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?

The Senior Investigating Officer in the case also has question marks surrounding her. It has been revealed that the officer lied in court about a previous case she was involved in (further details will be made available shortly). The integrity of the investigation can therefore be called into question.

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

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