Coaching:

The prosecutor Mr McCrudden maintained at various stages of my trial that if my account is the correct one then; 

• “It is a question of a conspiracy of lies, a deliberate attempt to have this man convicted of an offence for which he should not have been convicted.” Prosecution Page 517 of trial transcripts

Years latter it came to light that the Soldiers had been coached prior to testifying, which was a fact unknown to the trial judge and the 1^st Appeal Court. The Court in 2001 attached no relevance to the impact on the trial judge’s verdict this may have had. What was actually involved in the coaching, and by whom, is unknown. However, the accumulative evidence casting doubt upon the Soldiers accounts suggests that it was not safe or proper for the Court in 2001 to presume that no wrong doing was involved given the additional fact that the Trial Judge was not entirely comfortable with their evidence;

 “The Soldiers’ evidence although open to criticism…….” Last para. Page 5 of Trial Judgment

At trial Senior Counsel, acting on my behalf explored with each of the four Soldiers how much they had discussed my arrest and any preparations they may have made since my arrest and before arriving to testify at my trial.  Each of the four Soldiers denied discussing my case but more questionably all four Soldiers failed to disclose that they had in any way been coached prior to my trial. 

• The fact that the Soldiers could not be tested on this at trial, and absent any contemporaneous record of pretrial interaction with these witnesses it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain the extent to which the Soldiers may have been improperly influenced, overtly, covertly or even unwittingly to give false or misleading testimony. I have no way of knowing if the Soldiers were simply prepared, shaped or polished in their delivery of their testimony, or if the reason behind this coaching was to eliminate inconsistencies, avoid details or conceal information.

Without access to any contemporaneous notes to clarify what was involved it can be said that the Soldiers may have been vulnerable to Military suggestion or cues. If the Military conducted this coaching independent of the prosecution, or court service, this can only further encourage improper coaching by hiding the process from meaningful oversight by the Court or Defense.

What is evident is this, all four Soldiers withheld from defense counsel on examination the fact that they had been coached.  Moreover, it was the prosecution that first brought to the Court’s attention the possibility of there being a ‘conspiracy of lies’ amongst the soldiers. 

“This case so far as the essential facts are concerned is black and white, either there is a concoction and a fabrication, a series of dastardly lies being told by the military witnesses in this case or there is not. Mistake does not enter into it in my respectful submission.” Prosecution Page 523 Trial Transcripts