Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Police Impropriety 519
THE CARL BRIDGEWATER CASE
This case was discussed in detail by Foot (1998) and in the Court of Appeal
Judgment (The Royal Courts of Justice, 30 July 1997). Only a brief summary
of the case will be provided here. The case involved the conviction in November
1979 of four men, Michael Hickey, Vincent Hickey, James Robinson and Patrick
Molloy, for the murder by shooting on 19 September 1978 of a 13-year-old
newspaper delivery boy, Carl Bridgewater, at Yew Tree Farm, Wordsley, West
Midlands. Of crucial importance to the case was the confession of Patrick Molloy
made on 10 December 1978, where he implicated himself and the other three
co-accused in robbery and murder. Molloy did not take the witness stand during
the trial, which meant that he had not officially denied his confession in court.
Nevertheless, until his death in June 1981 he had always insisted to his lawyers
that the confession statement was false and had been given to the police for at
least two reasons (Foot, 1998). First, he claimed to have confessed after the
police had shown him a signed confession statement from Vincent Hickey, implicating
him in the murder. The police always denied the existence of any such
statement. Second, Molloy had wanted to take his revenge on Vincent Hickey
for implicating him in the case.
In December 1981, the other three remaining appellants were refused leave
to appeal against their convictions. In October 1987 the Home Secretary referred
the case to the Court of Appeal as a result of retractions of evidence
given at trial and fresh alibi evidence. The appeal was dismissed in March
1989. In July 1996 the Home Secretary referred the case again to the Court of
Appeal. There were two grounds for appeal. First, in 1994 evidence had come
to the attention of the defence that two unidentified fingerprints found on the
murdered boy’s bicycle, which had not previously been disclosed by the prosecution,
could not be matched to the appellants. Second, there appeared to have
been breaches of the Judges Rules in relation to the interrogation and detention
of Patrick Molloy.
On 21 February 1997 Michael Hickey, Vincent Hickey and James Robinson
were released on unconditional bail by the Court of Appeal, pending a full court
hearing. They had been in prison since their arrest 18 years previously. In view
of the fresh evidence concerning Molloy’s confession, the prosecution did not
oppose the appeal. The appeal took place in July 1997 before Lord Justice Roch
and Justices Hidden and Mitchell. The judgment is extremely detailed and
informative about the case. The convictions of the four men were quashed and
no re-trial was ordered.
Comments
This is an extreme case of police impropriety. If the jury had known about
the fabricated confession they would undoubtedly have become suspicious of the
remaining the police evidence. In addition, Molloy’s confession statement, and
the subsequent confessions he made, would have been ruled inadmissible by
the trial judge, because the police deceit would have rendered the confession
oppressive and involuntary (see transcript of the judgment).