Animal rights activist fights bomb plot conviction
25-02-2010 By Tim Hobden, Oxford Mail, UK
AN animal rights campaigner jailed for 10 years after being found guilty of plotting a fire-bomb attack on Oxford University has launched an appeal to clear his name. Mel Broughton, from Northampton, claimed he was found guilty on the basis of unreliable DNA evidence and is urging Appeal Court judges to quash his conviction.
Broughton addresses a demonstration in Broad Street, Oxford.
The 48-year-old was arrested after two improvised devices, made up of fuel and fuses made from sparklers, exploded at The Queen’s College sports pavilion, off Abingdon Road, Oxford, in November 2006.
The explosion caused almost £14,000-worth of damage.
Two similar bombs were planted underneath a portable building at Templeton College, Kennington, in February 2007, but failed to go off.
Broughton, a leading figure in the animals rights movement set up in 2004 in protest at Oxford University’s plans to build an animal testing research laboratory in South Parks Road, Oxford, told police he was a peaceful protester.
But he was convicted of conspiracy to commit arson and handed the 10-year sentence at Oxford Crown Court in February last year.
Broughton launched his appeal against the jury’s verdict yesterday before Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Kitchin and Sir Geoffrey Grigson, sitting at London’s Criminal Appeal Court.
The court heard a DNA sample found on a matchstick used as part of the fuse in one of the failed Templeton College devices was said to be Broughton’s by the prosecution at trial, and that evidence formed a central plank of the case against him.
But Broughton’s barrister, David Bentley QC, argued the reliability of the DNA evidence was “not sufficient”, and urged the judges to quash the conviction as unsafe.
Prosecution lawyers insisted the DNA evidence had been validated by “techniques which were entirely adequate”, and said the appeal should be turned down.
Lord Justice Thomas reser-ved his judgement on the case at the end of a half-day hearing, to allow the court time to consider the complicated scientific evidence.
He said: “The scientific evidence has to be sufficiently reliable, and that is the test.
“It is very, very important.
“The judge has to, in the interests of justice, examine with anxious scrutiny the reliability of the science.
“It is the duty of this court to see whether the judge came to a decision that was reasonably open to him.
“This sort of evidence is of great public concern,” the judge added.
The Appeal Court will give its ruling on Broughton’s appeal at a later date.
(Bron: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/)
(Bron foto: archief Kraaijer)
No comments:
Post a Comment