A remarkable feature of the earlier judgment is this; three senior High Court Judges believe that they heard Mr Bradley say things, during his testimony to them, that he did not say.  In their Judgment they state that Mr Bradley had “shifted his ground a couple of times” and that he had testified that ‘another man who had been walking about 15 feet in front of me had placed the jar on the wall’ or words to that effect.  There is no evidence of any of these in the transcripts of this man’s testimony, which I submit as documentary evidence. 

More accurately, Mr Bradley had testified that he had not seen the device. This conflicts with any suggestion that Mr Bradley had made any attempt, directly or otherwise, to attribute guilt upon anyone.  However, Mr Bradley did testify that he had always accepted news reports that the man (myself) arrested at the scene was guilty. That conflicts with any suggestion that he was trying to attribute the device to anyone other than me. Mr Bradley was a man of good conduct and clean record.

Going against its own Judgment:

The earlier Court stated in its judgment;

• “In his evidence in chief (transcript page 537) the appellant described seeing a man walking along the entry about 15 feet in front of him. He went on to say, however (page 538), that he passed on the soldier’s right hand side, so he could not have placed the bomb on the wall.
• …………
• There was no strong reason why he should have held back the fact during interview: he was not attributing the bomb to the man,…………… We do not consider that this fact was a matter upon which he relied as an integral part of his defense or that it was something which he could reasonably have been expected to mention when questioned.

The Court then goes against its own reasoning and the available evidence that neither Mr Bradley or I had ever attributed blame upon another passerby, as follows;

• “4. If another man had come along the alleyway in front of the appellant as he and Bradley averred, he could not have left the bomb on the wall, since they said that he went past Corporal Blacklock on the corporal’s right, which is the side away from the wall where the bomb was placed.”

The Court also stated in this Judgment;

• “The evidence given by Mr Bradley demonstrates the falsity of the appellant's evidence that there was another man there and in our view the judge's drawing of an inference that the appellant was lying on the subject did not have the effect of making the trial unfair.”

There are three egregious errors in the Court’s statement above;

• The prosecution did not challenge that the man was there, in fact; “The corporal and the other soldiers denied seeing any such man but none was prepared to say that he could not have been there.”
• The Judge was critical of when I informed the police about this man and not that I was ‘lying’ about his presence as the Appeal Court suggests; ”.. and that he did not say at best until 7th June that there was another person present at the scene at the time of the alleged offence.”

• Having accepted that since my arrest I had consistently said that the other passerby did not place the jar on the wall, the Court then wrongly suggested that Mr Bradley was now claiming that the other passerby had placed the jar, and this therefore concludes that, I am guilty.  This is not forgetting the fact that Mr Bradley had made no such allegations as the Court imagined and the appeal transcripts dispel.

• The Appeal hearing was itself unfair in using Mr Bradley’s evidence as the only grounds for upholding an otherwise unsafe conviction.

“If the evidence had remained as it was at the trial, we might have felt constrained to hold that we could not be satisfied that he must have reached the same conclusion about the appellant's account if he had not drawn the inference. We now have the evidence of Mr Bradley before us, which we have dismissed as a false account.”