www.socialequality.org.uk

SEP : A State Murder Exposed "Joy Gardner was the victim of a brutal police killing" Submission to the Workers Inquiry by Tony Hyland The task confronting this inquiry is to establish the truth about the death of Joy Gardner. The success of these proceedings will be measured by the degree to which this is established. In order to arrive at the truth, the events that unfolded in the early hours of July 28, 1993 must be closely examined. The research I have carried out over the last months has not only involved that day's events, but the developments leading up to it and what later transpired. This work has been conducted on many fronts. I would like to express on behalf of the Workers Inquiry our gratitude to Myrna Simpson, who has given us access to a wealth of legal and medical evidence without which the investigative work could not have proceeded. In addition to this I have reviewed the testimonies given at the Old Bailey, where the three officers from the Alien Deportation Group stood trial for manslaughter. My conclusions point in one direction -- that Joy Gardner, a 40 year old mother of two, was a victim of a brutal police killing. The officers responsible for this were part of a secret police unit that specialised in forcible deportation. Furthermore, the operation was directed by the highest levels of the British state including the Home Office. The evidence I will give has never before been presented to a public hearing. A concerted cover-up has been carried out from the moment Joy Gardner was admitted to hospital showing no vital signs of life. Before any of the facts could be seriously examined, the media swung into action to turn public opinion against Joy Gardner. Nearly every conceivable insult has been hurled against her name. She has been accused of everything from being a "benefit sponger" to a "potential murderer." These lies were placed in the media in order to divert attenfion away from the real cause of Joy Gardner's death and, by so doing, exonerate the actions of the police. To illustrate this I will cite only one example, although there are many to choose from. On August 10, 1993 an autopsy report was published stating that Joy died from starvation of oxygen to the brain. This tended to underline the criminal role of the police in placing 13 feet of tape around Joy Gardner's mouth. The Evening Standard on that day led with an article claiming that Joy was "mentally deranged". This was based on an interview with one of the suspended ADG officers. The Evening Standard was later forced to retract this bogus claim, but the damage had already been done. What purpose does such coverage serve? Can it seriously be suggested that this type of "news" enables a person to make an informed judgement? To a large degree, my evidence must take this misinformation into account -- to cut through it and disclose the facts. To make this information easier to digest it will be broken into three sections. What is the truth about Joy Gardner's attempt to stay in Britain? What were the events of July 28, 1993? What happened in the aftermath of Joy's death? Why has no one been held to account? The truth about Joy Gardner's attempts to stay in Britain To begin with, one of the most widespread misconceptions spread about Joy Gardner is that she was an "illegal immigrant" who simply "ignored several warnings to leave the country". This is untrue. Joy came from Jamaica and entered Britain legally on a temporary visa to visit her mother and family. She stayed longer than originally planned and sought status in a country where her family had been settled for decades. She did not ignore the orders for her deportation, but challenged them legally, although the channels she had to go down were very narrow. Here are some of the facts: Joy came to Britain to see her family on a six month visa in 1987. In October 1987 Joy gave birth to her son Graeme. The birth proved to problematic and Joy stayed on in hospital for two months for treatment due to a slipped disc. On September 6, 1990 she married Joseph Augustine Gardner, a British citizen. On September 11, 1990 Joseph applied for Joy to stay as his wife. This request was later withdrawn by him. From the documents we have, this withdrawal would appear to be due to the intervention of the Immigration Department. A letter to the Immigration Department from Mr Gardner's solicitor's, Cartwright, Cunningham & Hasel, dated September 28, 1990 states the following: "...On the advice of a member of your department he has consulted us in respect of proceedings to dissolve the marriage.." Mr Gardner was further advised by his solicitors that for legal reasons a year would have to pass before this could be achieved. It was at this stage that Mr Gardner began to make visits to the police station, making wild accusations about Joy. He even claimed that Joy had attempted to murder him by leaving gas appliances on in their home. At first the police did not appear to pay much attention to these claims, but once they learned that Joy had overstayed her visa they helped to serve an exclusion order on her. This exclusion order has always been held up as some kind of cast iron proof that Joy was violent, but one simple question remains unanswered. If the police really believed the measure was made necessary based upon Mr Gardner's allegations, why was Joy Gardner not charged with attempted murder? Mr Gardner was to repeat these allegations immediately after Joy's death in interviews given to the national press. On Thursday August 5, 1993 he stated in an interview with theDaily Mail: "It is true she [Joy] hit me, but I don't want to go into details unless you pay me a lot of money, then I'll tell everything." By August 8, The Mail on Sunday led with an exclusive "new claim by husband of deportee" under the emblazoned headlines "Joy tried to gas me". I think we can safely assume that a financial transaction had been made. It also gives an insight into Mr Gardner's unscrupulous character. To return to the exclusion order. The sole purpose of this was to have Joy and her two year old son thrown out on to the street. From then on Joy was forced to regularly check in at police stations whilst she continued to wage her appeal to stay in Britain. On October 26, 1991 Joy was arrested for overstaying her visa. She was granted temporary stay and was restricted to stay at a nominated address. On at least one occasion, in September 1991, both she and her son were detained at a police station for several hours. On October 26, 1991 Joy was served with a notice of intention to deport her. The appeal against this was turned down on February 20, 1992 and a deportation order was signed by the Home Secretary. From then on, Joy called upon Bernie Grant, her local Labour MP Barbara Roche and Bill Morris, the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) to make representations against her deportation. In January 1993, Joy's solicitor took up an appeal for her to stay on "compassionate grounds". The Immigration Department said that this would only be looked into if they were furnished with certain information. The letter dated February 5, 1993 requested the following information be submitted in 14 days for the Home Office to consider her application: A full medical report from the doctors who are treating her, giving details of her medical complaint and treatment and whether she is fit to travel. A letter from her university confirming her enrolment and attendance. Bank statements for the past six months. A letter from her child's school confirming her (his) attendance. Mrs Gardner's current address. This request was complied with and the relevant information submitted by Joy through her solicitors, Fletchers. Again I would like to cite this letter dated June 24, 1993 as evidence: "We are writing in order to provide you with further information in support of our client's application for leave to remain based on exceptional compassionate circumstances. "Our client has many family members residing in the United Kingdom with whom she is very close. Our clients mother; Myrna Simpson, is a British citizen and has resided in the United Kingdom since 1961. We hereby enclose a letter of support from Mrs Simpson as well as a photocopy of the first page of her British passport. "Ms. Gardner's sister, Maureen Donegan, was born in the United Kingdom and has resided here continuously. We enclose a copy of her Birth Certificate as well as a letter of support. We enclose a letter from Miss C. Donegan, who is the sister of Joy Gardner. Miss Donegan was born in this country on the 1st of February, 1966 and has always resided here. "We finally enclose a letter of support from Joy Gardner's cousin, Pauline Plummer, as well as a photocopy of the first page of her British passport. "We offer these documents as evidence of strong family ties Ms. Gardner has in this country, including her mother and two sisters. It is our submission that the existence of close family members in this country supports Ms. Gardner's application for leave to remain based on exceptional compassionate circumstances." A letter from Joy's uncle dated April 13, 1993 explained that he was prepared to sponsor her: "I am writing on behalf of Joy Gardner. I wish to apologise for her overstaying her permitted time in Britain. I think she was misinformed and due to her illness she failed to abide by the rules. She now realises her mistake and wishes to apply for permanent residence in this country. "If this is granted, I am willing to take on full responsibility for her keep. I am an uncle with a small, thriving business which will employ her. "Kindly treat this matter with compassion and thanks for your attention." It was signed S. G. Jones. Despite all of these attempts, there was no official reply sent from the Immigration Department. Instead they made an application for a deportation order to be carried out against Joy and her son Graeme. On July 27, Tower Bridge Magistrates authorised the deportation. That Joy Gardner was not given forewarning by the Immigration Department of the deportation order was not by accident, but by design. This is substantiated by the then Parliamentary Under Secretary for State and Immigration, Charles Wardle, who in a letter to the Labour MP Barbara Roche on August 3, 1993 stated, "...in accordance with our normal practice, the response to the solicitors was sent to coincide with the removal, to ensure Mrs Gardner was not alerted in advance." The plan was to round Joy and her son up at around 7am on July 28 and have them put on a plane to Jamaica leaving from Heathrow at 3pm that same day! It was for this purpose that the services of the Alien Deportation Group were called on. Until the death of Joy Gardner little was known about the existence of this arm of the police. Its official remit was to assist in deportations "where violence might be confronted". If its existence is justified then why the need for secrecy? If its activities were legitimate why was it wound up directly after Joy's death? Is this action an admission of culpability? Although information is extremely scarce, what little there is available proves that the Home Office and Immigration Department were increasingly relying on its services to carry out forcible deportations. In the process of carrying out these deportations a number of unlawful restraints were unofficially sanctioned such as the mouth-gag and the body-belt. The claims that those in the Home Office did not know about these restraints does not hold water. The ADG billed for the tape that was used as a mouth-gag in its yearly budget! This unit was exempt from having to record the use of these devices, which is in contrast to the procedures the regular police are obliged to follow. The three ADG officers who were to take charge of the deportation of Joy Gardner were highly experienced. Between them they had 50 years experience. One of them -- Detective Sergeant Linda Evans had recently moved to the ADG from the Anti-Terrorist Squad. All of this was deemed necessary for the deportation of a mother and five year old child. The events of July 28, 1993 In the second part of my submission I would like to explain the events that unfolded in the early hours of July 28, 1993. Two police vans pulled up outside Joy Gardner's home address at 8 Topsfield Close, Hornsey between the hours of 7 and 8am Five police officers and one Immigration Officer approached the address. They were three ADG officers -- PC Cohn Whitby who was in charge of the operation, PC John Burrell and Detective Sergeant Linda Evans, accompanied by two local police officers, WPC Broker Kerry and PC Adamson along with the Immigration Officer, Mr Ferris. In order to reconstruct what happened, I am forced to rely of the statements of the police themselves. However these statements are extremely incriminating. They show how a tremendous amount of force was used by the five police officers. Despite the fact that the officers made claims that they were confronted with a huge amount of violence, this is unsubstantiated. None of these claims are backed up with concrete proof. In other words this force was unprovoked. This unprovoked force began the moment that police officers arrived at Joy's front door. The time of this according to the police was approximately 7.40am. It should be recalled that at this point Joy had not been informed that her appeal had been turned down, let alone that a deportation order had been made against her and Graeme. The element of surprise was compounded by the fact that she had been awoken from her sleep. It can only be imagined the shock she must have been in when, on opening the door, she found six officers ready to deport her there and then. Joy explained to them that she was not dressed and wished to phone her solicitor. What was the response of the police to this simple request? PC Cohn Whitby shoved his foot in the door to keep it ajar. He then proceeded to cut the safety chain. The speed with which the officers moved through the house can be ascertained by the fact that Joy never had time to make the phone call. All the officers said in their statements that they were adamant that Joy was not to use the phone. So they had to force her away from the vicinity of the phone. One of the officers even tore the phone out of its socket. It is then reported by the police that Joy asked what was going to happen to her son, to which the officers replied that they were to deport him as well. At this point Graeme, who was witnessing this distressing scene, began to cry. At least three officers then claim that they grabbed hold of Joy's arms and PC Colin Whitby shouted "deck her"! Joy was then thrown to the floor head first. The degree of ferocity was so great that in the process a chair was broken. According to the statements of the police, they were all lying on top of Joy. The combined weight of three males and two females was bearing down on one woman. The pain of this was exacerbated by the fact that Joy still suffered from a back complaint resulting from a difficult pregnancy. Joy had been receiving physiotherapy for this problem. It was at this stage that PC Colin Whitby began to bring out the belts and handcuffs. If you look in your programmes you will see the devices I am referring to. First the body-belt. They tie it back to front initially, then pull it around so that the buckle is at the back. They then placed her hands into the cuffs, which were by her abdomen. It is clear that this would have taken both a lot of time and force. PC Whitby stated that the belt did not originally fit and he had to make several new notches. All this time the rest of the officers would have to be on top of Joy. After Joy is manacled in the body-belt, two other leather straps are placed around her ankles and thighs. Even at this stage, with Joy completely trussed up, the police officers do not back off. Joy is then placed on her front face down and PC Colin Whitby begins to wrap 13 feet of adhesive around Joy's mouth. He uses two reels of tape, first a pink roll and then on top of this a white roll. One roll in one direction, the other in the opposite direction. The tape makes seven full circles around Joy's head. Even after the police have carried out all this, they show no concern whatsoever as to the dangerous position she is in. They left Joy Gardner in this position. It has been established that this position can cause what is known as "position asphyxiation" because it hampers the ability to breathe. This is even more likely after so much physical exertion and force had been used against her. Add to this the emotional trauma. What must have been going through Joy's mind? If she had been subjected to this treatment, how were these people going to treat her son? We already know that Graeme was crying after witnessing this violent scene. The police claim that everything possible was done to revive Joy after they noticed she had lost consciousness. Their own evidence disproves this. They admit that the only measure that was employed to monitor Joy's safety was the taking of her pulse. However; a person's heart continues to beat after breathing has stopped. Even when they couldn't detect Joy's pulse, they still left the mouth-gag on. PC Adamson's statement verifies this. He said that he overheard Burrell and Whitby saying that they could not find her pulse: "Two or three minutes must have lapsed. I shone my torch into her eyes and there was no response. PC Whitby then removed the gag." [Our emphasis]. By the time the ambulance finally arrived at 8.15am the team of paramedics could not resuscitate Joy. She was admitted to Whittington Hospital at 8.46am, still showing no vital signs of life. Despite the fact that Joy had stopped breathing for approximately 40 minutes, her heart beat was revived on a life support machine. The doctors reported that she had a severely swollen brain and that the chances of her surviving were virtually nil. On August 1, Joy Gardner was officially pronounced dead. Why has no one been held to account? From the very outset the investigation into the death of Joy Gardner was held behind closed doors. The Home Office, who were culpable for Joy's death, were among those who adamantly opposed a public inquiry. The ADG was dissolved six days after the raid. This meant that no comprehensive examination could be made of its secret activities. The body which was empowered to investigate Joy's death was the Police Complaints Authority. It had no remit to investigate the actions of the Immigration Officer who took part in the deportation. This had the effect of removing a vital link in the chain of command between the Home Office and the fatal actions of the deportation police. The PCA is often portrayed as a neutral body that looks into the complaints made by the public against the police. The reality is quite different. The PCA came into being in 1985. It replaced the former Police Complaints Body which had become totally discredited. The PCA claimed to be more impartial because it had people from outside the police force on its permanent committee. If we look at the annual report of the PCA we can see who these "neutral people" are. Out of the its 14 permanent members, eight have held positions as senior managers. The chairman, Sir Leonard Peach, was formerly a Director of Corporate Affairs for the computer giant, IBM. In 1993 the PCA dealt with 27 deaths in police custody. In the last year the PCA has had to deal with a record number of cases. In its annual report it states, "The main reason for the increase was a sharp rise to 48 in the number of referrals to the Authority resulting from deaths in police care or custody". Yet no police officers have been convicted for any of these deaths. This is even the case when decisions by Coroner's Inquests have returned the verdict of "unlawful killing". This demonstrates that rather than being a "neutral" body, the PCA is an integral part of the police apparatus. Its role is to prevent any of the evidence relating to the death of a person in police custody from being disclosed to the public. It ensures that no one investigates the police, except the police themselves. In the case of Joy's death the investigation was carried out by the Essex Police Force. The findings were constantly postponed until February 16, 1994. These findings consisted of a 230 page report and 1,500 pages of evidence. This included medical evidence, interviews with the police officers involved and a range of other material. This information was passed on to the Crown Prosecution Service for them to decide whether criminal proceedings would be taken. None of this information has ever been made public. It was not until November 21, 1994 after a preliminary hearing at Bow Street Magistrates Court, that the Crown Prosecution decided to take criminal proceedings. This only involved the three ADG officers who faced the charges of manslaughter. The Old Bailey trial that took place between May 15 and June 13 this year was not the culmination of a process to make the truth known and to achieve justice. It was the conclusion of a systematic cover-up over a protracted period. Those responsible for making the case against the three ADG officers were the Crown Prosecution Service. The Crown Prosecution Service never challenged the use of the restraints employed by the ADG. In fact, it sanctioned them. The summary made on June 7 stated, "The ADG officers have explained the use of the gag was permitted in exceptional circumstances. The example of its use in the van seems justifiable, its use in planes is logical." The prosecution only took exception to the fact that it was used in the home! The credibility of those who were called to back up the wild claims of the police that Joy was violent was never challenged. This is especially criminal when you think who these people were. The two local police officers and the Immigration Officer involved in the operation that led to Joy's death were amongst those called as witnesses for the defence. Joseph Gardner submitted testimony. The substance of this testimony was based upon the allegations he had made in The Daily Mail newspaper that Joy attempted to gas him. Even though he made these stories up for the purpose of financial gain, this was never challenged by the prosecution. Mr Gardner never appeared to personally give his testimony, which meant he did not have to face cross examination. Throughout the trial, the Judge, Mr Justice Mantell, made numerous interventions to bias the jury towards acquitting the ADG officers. Mr Mantell set down six questions that the jury would have to answer yes to in order to find the defendants guilty. Are we sure Joy Gardner died of asphyxiation? Are we sure asphyxiation was caused by the gag? Are we sure the gag was not necessary in the circumstances? Are we sure the individuals played an active role in its application? Are we sure the defendant believed it was necessary in the circumstances? Are we sure it was obvious that the use of the gag would be dangerous, which would subject the individual to suffering? It was virtually impossible to answer, "No" to the first two questions. The overwhelming medical evidence pointed to the fact that Joy Gardner died by suffocation due to the mouth-gag. The Judge himself said that this was strongly proven. However, as soon as this was made evident the Judge twisted this to make his first intervention calling for one of the ADG officers to be acquitted halfway through the trial. On June 2, he directed the jury to acquit PC Burrell on the pretext that he had played no part in applying the gag. Yet it was PC Burrell who had held Joy's head whilst PC Whitby wrapped the adhesive tape around her mouth. In any normal case this would have constituted 'joint-enterprise" -- a legal definition used to convict accomplices to murder or manslaughter. From then on the remaining two defendants were given a free hand to alter their testimony from the version of events they gave in their original statements. The problem still remained -- how was PC Colin Whitby, the officer who gagged Joy, to justify wrapping 13 feet of tape around her mouth? How could this possibly be deemed "reasonable"? In his original statement, Whitby said that the second reel of tape was applied to stop Joy from screaming. Now he was to claim that the first lot of tape had been removed by Joy. When he was asked why he did not refer to this in his original statement, he replied "I can't explain". Neither could Whitby explain how Joy was supposed to have removed the tape whilst her hands were still in the handcuffs attached to the body-belt. In Detective Sergeant Evans testimony she says that she was lying across Joy's midriff at this time, making it impossible for Joy to remove the tape. This story was further undermined by hard forensic evidence, which established that the two different reels of tape had overlapped. In other words they must have been placed over one another! PC Whitby claimed that the tape had only been applied to stop Joy biting after he had seen Joy do this to PC Adamson. Yet he made no such claim to this effect in his original statement. It was self-evident that PC Whitby had only used the tape for one reason -- to stop Joy's screams from being heard. Detective Sergeant Evans, who had handed the second reel of tape to Whitby, then asked the jury to believe that she didn't know what it was being used for. This was based on the incredible claim that she had her back to Whitby when she was passing the tape! In the Judge's summary, Mantell told the jury that because the police had changed their original version of events this did not imply any inconsistency with regards to the truth. The jury were told to overlook this. He upheld the use of the mouth-gag, even though he admitted that it had probably caused Joy's suffocation. In conclusion, Mantell indicated that the jury should find the ADG officers not guilty. During the course of the jury's deliberations, they returned to ask whether it is unlawful to use a gag landside? The Judge answered, "If the defendant may have believed that it was reasonably necessary to use the gag in the circumstances, the verdict must be not guilty. It is not unlawful to use a gag landside if it is reasonably necessary, or the defendant believed it was reasonably necessary. The following was the Judge's definition of reasonable force, "Sometimes it is necessary to use force. Some may recoil at this. But how else was the objective to be achieved if they don't go freely?" On this direction the jury found the two ADG officers not guilty by a margin of 10 to 2. Previous Article | Next Article | Buy the Book