Forensic Case

1. Describe the case - The Kevin Nunes murder case

The infamous Kevin Nunes case was a case of Gangland savagery. The victim Nunes was killed in cold blood, beaten kicked, his skull bashed in with a blow, shot five times and subsequently mauled in a way which would sicken even the most hardened. He showed signs of promise in football but was believed to be part of a drug group and killed as a result of on-going rivalry between rival groups involved in transporting cocaine from midlands to Aberdeen, where there is a very high demand for drugs and can be paid twice its price.(Rose, 2013)

Six years after the murder of Nunes, five men were convicted of murder in 2008 and sentenced to life. This was on the basis of statements by a witness Simeon Taylor in 2005. He claimed that it was he who drove some of the killer site and witnessed the killing of Nunes. His disclosures enabled him entry into the witness protection program by the SPU. This by itself would not have been source of concern, had it not been for subsequent disclosures from a secret file, which was a result of the investigation into the SPU handling the case, that the police went to all kinds of extents so that he could be retained as a witness. These discoveries made the prosecution case were weakened considerably by evidence of corruption in police. (Rose, 2013)

2. Revelations of Police turpitude and malpractices, Shocking disclosures and Contentious issues

This case was 11 years old but has been reopened in 2012 as a result of questions being raised about the ethics of police investigation and tactics, along with other cases (Plebgate scandal) The investigations have produced a 200 page report, have revealed shocking facts which have questioned this very verdict and involves serious malpractice and ethical failures on the part of the police in the Nunes case. The allegations that were laid against the Staffordshire’s sensitive policing unit included covering up, lies, suppression of relevant facts, compromising the integrity of the case by colluding with an unreliable and untrustworthy witness. (Rose, 2013)

The lies involved in the Nunes case started getting exposed with the appointment of a new head of the SPU, who was shocked at the level of manipulations and cover ups practiced by the SPU, with respect to the Nunes and made a formal complaint in the Staffordshire Professional Standards Department. Even though an investigation into the activities of the SPU with respect to the Nunes case, was launched and a report confirming many of the things reported by Joe Anderson was produced before the start of the Nunes trial but it did not reach the higher authorities, the defense and the prosecution side. Basically the suppression of this report skewed the case against the defendants. Probably, the extent of police mishandling and corruption would still have been hidden, had it not been for the retraction by Simeon of his statement regarding the identification of the defendants. He was recorded admitting on phone that he had lied. This led to a new enquiry which produced the massive report which details the extent of the SPU’s activities. (Rose, 2013)

Subsequently, the enquiry revealed that many senior police officials were implicated in this mishandling and could be charged. Appeal Court judgment has revealed that their actions amounted to “serious perversion of justice and shocking” Shockingly, The senior personnel includes the police chief of Northamptonshire who was previously the national lead on police ethics as well as several junior officers as well as other chief constables of other areas

The appeals court heard evidence to the effect in a dossier related to the Nunes case stating that:

- There was extensive evidence of compromising of the case involving the police and the prosecution witnesses

- The chief prosecution witness provided shelter to two officers, who were handling the witness, who were involved in a sexual relationship

- The witness was very close to the police, which was against ethics of criminal case investigation had gone drinking with them, had access to drugs, stolen police funds

- Went on drinking sprees to nightclub and was allowed to meet his girlfriend.

- The police kept his thieving activities unknown in order to maintain his reputation as a reliable witness

- The Staffordshire police had received a report on the SPU and this Nunes case and all these findings in which police turpitude and the doubtful quality of the witness was mentioned as well as the way in which they handled the witness but suppressed it and did not allow it to leak out- suppression of vital information

- Results show that under these circumstances, the accusations against the accused cannot be taken into consideration and hence the convictions against the accused were squashed and severely reprimanded the police (Rose,2013) (Dodd, 2012)

5. Why I chose this issue?

I chose this case as it highlights the fact that the protectors of law and order, can manipulate things in such a way that justice may be served wrongfully. This whole story brings out the failure of the police on various fronts including investigation procedures, selection of a doubtful witness, and handling of the witness in a totally unethical way as well as suppression of vital information following investigation. It raises questions on how much the public can rely on police action when they themselves are corrupt and lack ethics, in their manner of handling a case, thus making it difficult for any party to get justice.

6. Review of Press Coverage

The press coverage has been substantial with many newspapers giving extensive details on the case as well as the appeals case which has led to the overthrow of the convictions. This includes the Daily Mail, BBC, The guardian etc. Each step of the unravelling case has been detailed out as well as the implications for the police in Britain. The coverage of this and other police related cases have forced the police into a situation where they need to assess themselves as they are facing considerable public scrutiny as well as opprobrium on account of their complete lack of ethics.

7. Implications on public confidence and professional codes of conduct on the organisation

The disclosures from this case, has profound implications for the police force. Public confidence in their rectitude, truthfulness, ability to deliver justice has been badly shaken. The total unprofessionalism as well as corrupt behaviour exhibited has damaged the police’s reputation so much that now they are forced to take corrective measures to clean up the system and to reinstall professionalism. With this intention in mind, the College of Policing has laid out new guidelines which specifically and minutely highlight the kind of behaviours which are unacceptable to the police force. This is badly needed to be enforced on a force which seems to be more lawless than the perpetrators committing offences. (Doyle, 2013) One of the major take away points from the case are that trying to get a case solved does not mean, one resorts to unethical methods to having it done one’s way. Policing and crime investigation requires the highest standards of personal and professional behaviour. It is about trust and justice. Even though, the Crown Prosecution Service, in their investigation against the officers have found “insufficient evidence to ensure realistic conviction of the officers” on charges of corruption, mishandling and cover ups, the public perception will be harder to erase and the police will be under pressure to keep their investigating practices above board.(Cps.gov.uk, 2014)