THE family of a member of the Shrewsbury 24, a group of trade unionists convicted for picketing in the 1970s, has had his named cleared at the Court of Appeal.
Thomas Brian Williams, who died aged 74 in 2013, was among two dozen trade unionists who picketed during the 1972 national builders’ strike and were charged with offences including unlawful assembly, conspiracy to intimidate and affray, for picketing.
In March last year, 14 of the group, including Royle Family actor Ricky Tomlinson, had their convictions quashed following a Court of Appeal challenge.
Their lawyers had argued that the destruction of original witness statements linked to their trials meant their convictions were unsafe.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates miscarriages of justice, referred Mr Williams’s case to the court after it was approached by his daughter-in-law Samantha Williams.
She watched by videolink as senior judges overturned his convictions following a short hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Thursday.
The 1972 pickets were striking for better wages and health and safety, at a time when many workers were being injured or killed on building sites; 22 were convicted in three trials in 1973 and 1974 and six were jailed, while two were acquitted.
Piers Marquis, representing Mr Williams, told the court he was convicted of affray and unlawful assembly at the second trial, which focused on a site in Telford, Shropshire, and was sentenced to six months in custody.
He said the appeal was brought on the grounds that “the destruction of witness statements and the failure to disclose the fact of that destruction rendered the proceedings unfair” and made the convictions unsafe.
In Thursday’s ruling, Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Sweeting, referred to the previous Court of Appeal judgment.
Lord Justice Fulford said in that ruling: “If the destruction of the handwritten statements had been revealed to the appellants at the time of the trial, this issue could have been comprehensively investigated with the witnesses when they gave evidence, and the judge would have been able to give appropriate directions.
“We have no doubt that if that had happened, the trial process would have ensured fairness to the accused.
“Self-evidently, that is not what occurred.
“By the standards of today, what occurred was unfair to the extent that the verdicts cannot be upheld.”
The earlier appeal was told that a note discovered in the National Archives in 2013, from a 1973 consultation involving police and the original trial prosecutor, said ‘not all original handwritten statements were still in existence, some having been destroyed after a fresh statement had been obtained’.
It continued: “In most cases the first statement was taken before photographs were available for witnesses and before the officers taking the statements knew what we were trying to prove.”
Lord Justice Holroyde said the March 2021 judgment’s conclusions were “determinative” on Mr Williams’s case.
He said that “by modern standards the appellant did not and could not have a fair trial because of the non-disclosure”, adding that “his convictions are accordingly unsafe”.