Justice 4 Jordan Cunliffe

On the 10th August 2007, Garry Newlove was told by one of his daughters that there were youths vandalising a mini-digger outside in the street. Mr Newlove went outside and began remonstrating with a group of teenagers about the damage being done. The confrontation became violent, in the course of which a single kick to his head proved fatal.

Adam Swellings and Stephen Sorton were involved with this argument, they both took part to some extent in the violent confrontation which ensued and lasted less than 10 seconds. Jordan Cunliffe was several yards away during this time but had been in general terms with Adam and Stephen that night.

All three were convicted of Garry Newlove’s murder on the 16th January 2008 after a 2 month trial in which 2 other teenagers were cleared of any involvement.

Adam Swellings and Stephen Sorton were convicted because they took part in the attack. But Jordan was convicted because he was associated with them, and saw something similar to the following video clip but did nothing to prevent it.

Consider this. If you were an associate of the man in the dark blue top in this clip and you saw this happen from about this distance but did nothing to prevent it, would you be guilty of murdering the man in grey if he died 2 days later?

(This is not footage of the actual incident, it is merely a visual demonstration of a similar event.)

That effectively is why the prosecution and courts say Jordan is guilty of murder. They say that because he was with Adam and Stephen that night, albeit some yards away at the time, and he saw something similar to what you have just seen but didn’t even shout “stop”, he is guilty of murder. Yet what you saw isn’t what Jordan would have seen.

Jordan had a degenerative eye condition known as Keretaconus for which he was awaiting corrective surgery. Rather than seeing what you did, he would only have been capable of seeing this. Although please keep in mind that the 10 second attack did not happen in daylight but instead in darkness.

Until late 2009 it would have been a criminal offence to publish this information. The courts placed strict restrictions on any form of media disclosing details of Jordan’s disability, these remained in place until after his appeal application to the single judge had been refused. You can understand why they would wish to avoid the embarrassment of allowing the conviction of Jordan based on what he saw when he had this level of disability, which was known from the very beginning.

Jordan Cunliffe’s conviction is in effect a malicious prosecution of a disabled young person, carried out and endorsed by every department in the justice system. First by investigating officers, who rather than afford him the level of support and understanding his disability required, chose to use that medically proven fact against him and accuse him of lying about it when he couldn’t describe what he saw. Then by the CPS, who knew that the medical evidence existed to prove that Jordan could not have seen what their case against him required that he did, but carried on and pursued it regardless. Even Jordan’s own defence team endorsed this prosecution by failing to call the Optometrist he specifically wanted to explain to the jury how his capabilities were affected by his condition, instead they agreed for the prosecution to read out a diagnosis the jury wouldn’t understand or appreciate the implications of. Finally there is the courts themselves, who knowing what you do now rubber stamped his conviction and refused him leave to appeal.

Perhaps surprisingly there is more. The further you delve into this case in respect of Jordan’s conviction, the more apparent it becomes that it is not only unsafe, but utterly ridiculous. The same can be said of any law that makes a conviction such as this possible and that is exactly what joint enterprise law does.

Jordan Cunliffe is innocent.