Sunday, January 9, 2011

Innocent Eddie

My rather meagre Christmas was thoroughly spoilt by the news that Innocent Eddie Gilfoyle has finally been released. Not sad news, you might properly think. In itself, no. But...

Anyone remotely informed about the case against Eddie Gilfoyle will know that it is baseless. The evidence presented at his trial was both manipulated and manufactured. It was sparse then and as the years have passed that evidence has become non¬existent. Eddie is as innocent as I am guilty. Having shared his company, I can also tell you that he is a thoroughly decent bloke.

Eighteen years on, and still resolutely insisting his innocence, Eddie was released for Xmas. A bittersweet event as his release came not by order of the Court of Appeal, but by the Parole Board. His appeal continues.

What made me so angry about his release (along with The Times, who have campaigned on Eddie’s behalf) was one of the conditions that the Parole Board placed on his Life Licence. Eddie is not allowed to talk to the media about his case, even through third parties.

This is absolutely unprecedented, a condition never before placed upon a released Lifer. Should he breach this condition, he is liable to be recalled back to prison to continue his Life sentence.

This is shocking. It is also, unquestionably, illegal. Imagine the depths of depraved justification that the Parole Board sank to in order to impose this restriction. This is a man in a liberal democratic country. A man who claims he is innocent of his crime. A man who has persistently campaigned for his innocence in the media for the whole of his sentence. And now, on his conditional release, he is gagged from speaking in public, prevented under threat of imprisonment from simply stating the words, "I am innocent".

If anyone doubts the need for people such as myself to be allowed to speak, to campaign, then the situation of Eddie Gilfoyle alone provides a justification. These are the depths that our masters will sink to in order to hide their embarrassment. And I -amongst many - hope I won't ever let them get away with it. Will you?


  1. I must confess to knowing almost nothing about the case, but from that position I have one rather large question:

    Why would the authorities wish to gag him if it is not simply to try and prevent an embarrassing revelation that they’ve wasted tax payers money keeping an innocent man locked up in prison for 18 years?

    Of course should he later be proven to be innocent even more tax payers money will have to be spent on compensating him for the 18 lost years of his life (of course no amount of money can adequate compensate a person for being imprisoned for almost two decades despite being innocent).

  2. It shows that they are weak; but its terrible when they get away with things like this. Its a clear breach of his human rights and I hope his legal team are on to it and also that a campaign gets up and running

  3. tbh, they must just think he won't bother challenging this as there is no possible way that this decision will stand up to a Judicial review under the Human Rights Act.

  4. I agree with Alistair Sloan. And, I would like to know how they can get away with it? Then again it highlights just how our parole system works, if you don't agree with them, they gag you!! Nice

  5. It scares me to think of situations like this. My family member maintained his innocence and this resulted in being in prison for 4 years, during which time he was called a liar and told he was in denial by everyone connected to the penal system. Can no-one in authority actually believe that perhaps someone insists they are innocent of a crime because they are innocent? The Parole Board have nowhere in their practices to actually believe that some is innocent - how ridiculous - some times juries/judges get it wrong and some people in prison really are innocent. Ben, keep speaking - perhaps one day someone may listen. I cannot really believe that the Parole Board can stop Eddie speaking - he could not surely be returned to prison unless he commits a crime - but then I guess the authorities seem to be able to get away with anything if they wish. If Eddie is reading this - keep going and strong.

  6. JR the decision. I'd be surprised if the Parole Board was able to show that the decision was not unreasonable and I suspect there is an argument that it is also ultra vires.

  7. In those circumstances I would have probably agreed to silence initially then broke my silence as soon as I was freed. Let them imprison me again - parole wouldn't have quietened my conscience anyway - nothing but an acquittal would do. Now that Eddie is free his appeals will just languish in the judicial system and he may never get the justice he deserves nor the compensation he is entitled to.

  8. Having served time with Eddie (i was guilty) and have spent many yeas inside various jails, i have only ever met 1 innocent man. That man was a true gentleman, caring, kind and without doubt a thouroughly decent man, his name is 'Innocent Eddie Gilfoyle' It was a well known fact amongst cons and screws that Eddie is Innocent. The fact he has been released as an offence denier means the parole board also have a belief in his innocence. Can't wait till he gets his voice back as he has alot to say snd bent coppers to catch and punish!

  9. Eddie Gilfoyle: For the past 18 years the world has only heard from The Gilfoyle Campaign distorted account of what happened. Fact: This decent caring man kicked his first wife down the stairs when she was heavily pregnant she was rescued by her family, friends and neighbours.Now remarried and living down south. The world is about to be reminded of the verifiable truth


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.