For seven years Siôn Jenkins has had to live in the shadow of injustice. There has been no recognition of the grief and loss he has experienced ; instead, he has had to bear the stigma of being condemned as a murderer – a charge he has resolutely denied over this entire time.
A man is serving a life sentence for the murder of Billie – Jo Jenkins. On the face of it, society has the retribution it expects in these circumstances, and the demands of the legal system have been satisfied . That system is fallible, though, as demonstrated by two chilling facts:
- Siôn Jenkins is innocent ; the wrong man is serving a life sentence.
- The real murderer remains at large.
Complacency is no substitute for justice : we should all feel uneasy about what has been allowed to happen.
- A discredited police force
- The role of innuendo
- Social Services failure
A Discredited Police Force.
Siôn Jenkins was sentenced to life imprisonment on 2 July 1998. 1998 had been a particularly bad year for Sussex police.
- January 1998 – the James Ashley shooting in Hastings.
- January 1998 – murder of two women in Hastings in one week. To this day neither of these murders has been solved.
- February 1998 – the murder conviction of Sheila Bowler from Rye, near Hastings, overturned at retrial.
- June 1998 – collapse of the Watson murder case for lack of evidence.
The reputation of Sussex police was in doubt following some high profile publicity.The Jenkins murder had generated enormous attention from the national media. This put the force under intense pressure to get a conviction.
Specific concerns.
Sussex police mishandled the investigation into the murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins in 1997.
At the time of the Ashley shooting they were also involved in constructing the case against Siôn Jenkins. In fact, two of the officers in the Ashley case also investigated the Jenkins case.
The conduct of Sussex police at various stages of the investigation demand scrutiny.
- Crucial evidence given by Siôn Jenkins immediately after the murder was not recorded by the police officer concerned until 18th Feb 1997, three days later.
- A week after Siôn Jenkins was charged in March 1997, police behaved most inappropriately in the conduct of a sensitive interview involving critical alibi witnesses. This fact was explicitly commented on by judges at both trial and at appeal.
- At the time of the murder, and afterwards, a number of individual witnesses approached the police with significant evidence. They were sent away and told that the police already had the guilty man (i.e. Siôn Jenkins) Some of these witnesses have continued to express disbelief and concern at the response they received from Sussex police.
- Members of the jury were sent home for the night while their deliberations were still in progress. At such a critical point in a sensitive, high-profile case, the impartiality of jury members was at risk of being compromised.
- After Siôn Jenkins’ conviction a number of officers involved in the case were very publicly given commendations. The case was used as a high-profile PR exercise. In his operational report to Sussex Police Authority in July 1998 Paul Whitehouse spoke of the ” high degree of integrity and professionalism” displayed by his force in the Jenkins case. He added that “the post-trial media coverage reflected most favourably on the skill and sensitivity of the police enquiry.” His words now have a hollow ring.
Today the credibility of Sussex police remains a matter for unease.
The force’s systems and its officers’ behaviour have not been of the standard the public is entitled to expect.
For six years Siôn Jenkins has had to live in the shadow of injustice. Accused of murder, he had the right to a fair trial – but that right was critically undermined by Sussex police.
Well before any evidence came before a jury they set out to establish him in the minds of the public as a likely murderer. Their deliberate use of the media, with its cynical timing of ‘disclosures’, is well known and amply documented.
Siôn Jenkins is the victim of this disturbing manipulation of the facts .
However, the years have brought a changed public perception. The concerns first voiced by the campaign in 1998 have been reinforced by the details which have since emerged about Sussex police and their operations in a number of other cases. Their role in events leading up to the conviction of Siôn Jenkins still demands the closest scrutiny.
So does the behaviour of at least one key individual connected with the case.
A request to David Blunkett
This campaign, supported by hundreds of people, has always expressed deep unease about the conduct of Sussex police in securing the conviction of Siôn Jenkins.
In the name of justice , we now ask David Blunkett to order a full enquiry into the operations of a police force which, over the last six years, has seriously mishandled a number of murder cases and whose conduct continues to generate widespread public anxiety.
The role of innuendo.
When Siôn Jenkins’ was charged with murder on 14 March 1997, he was also charged with deception. Both before and after Siôn Jenkins’ trial for murder the deception charge has had a pivotal role.
The innuendo surrounding his qualifications was used by the media, fed by the police, to undermine his credibility. Locally, rugby club gossip played its part. So did the efforts of a magistrate who stridently denounced Siôn Jenkins as guilty before the trial was held, and energetically canvassed opinion against him.
Accused of murder, he had the right to a fair trial – but that right was critically undermined by Sussex police.
Well before any evidence came before a jury they set out to establish him in the minds of the public as a likely murderer. Their deliberate use of the media, with its cynical timing of ‘disclosures’, is well known and amply documented.
The police version of his qualifications has now been revealed as selective and inaccurate. They claimed he did not have a degree, and was not qualified for the job he obtained.
click here to see copy of certificate
This, and evidence of his previous professional performance indicate that this was not the case.
Did the governors and local education authority check the extent and detail of the alleged falsification? Or were their actions based on what they were told by the police?
As the truth now emerges it will become apparent that the misuse of the facts by those in authority, and their motives, raise serious doubt about their right to the moral high ground they have always claimed .
Four years after Siôn Jenkins’ failed – and flawed – first appeal, public concern continues to intensify.
An innocent man has lost his freedom; a murderer remains free. This wrong must be righted.
Social Services failure.
East Sussex Social Services department has been identified as one of the ten worst in the country, with a zero rating for its performance. It has failed to meet the expected standards. Disturbingly, it has also played a significant role in the case of Siôn Jenkins.
In March 1997, just one week after Siôn Jenkins was charged with murder, an East Sussex social worker simply failed to attend a critical meeting organised, with his co-operation, by Sussex police. His presence at the meeting was vital, to ensure the official protection of vulnerable individuals whose wellbeing was his direct concern. His absence from the meeting meant they were denied protection from what proved to be a traumatic experience with far-reaching consequences.
East Sussex Social Services did not send a substitute, even though the meeting was arranged at a crucial moment during the early stages of a very high profile case.
Reservations about the conduct of that meeting were expressed by the original trial judge. The criticism of the appeal court judges was more explicit. Yet East Sussex Social Services has never accounted for its abysmal performance in this matter.
The integrity of Sussex police is already a matter of public concern. The deficiencies of East Sussex Social Services have now been exposed. Their joint failure of responsibility after the murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins led to a shameful miscarriage of justice.