If Sam Hallam is innocent, why would prosecution witnesses accuse him and why was there no confirmation of his alibi testimony?

Why did PH accuse Sam?

Inconsistencies in PH’s testimony have been outlined above. There are additional aspects of her statements which cast doubt on her truthfulness and accuracy. In the view of observers at the trial, PH seemed to want to play a ‘star role’ in the case by placing herself at the centre of events. This is evidenced in statements she made to police on 12^th and 14^th October 2004.

In her first statement, she claimed that following the attack on Essayas Kasahun “we led him to the petrol station further down Old Street to get him some help”. This was untrue. PH did not help the murder victim to the Shell station. CCTV images from the garage shop show he was solely assisted by his friend GR.

 In her second statement, PH no longer claimed to have helped Essayas but instead said that having been told that he was hurt, she went to the garage shop. She said Essayas and GR “were just going in”. Again, this is not true.  CCTV stills show the two men were already well inside the garage shop by 20:44:38pm. It was not until 1½ minutes later - at 20:46:15pm – that PH entered the shop.  By this time, GR and the wounded victim had gone into the shop’s toilet where GR was attempting to staunch the blood pouring from his friend’s head.  PH said that “I called for an ambulance when Essayas was still conscious”. This was untrue. At GR’s request, the garage proprietor telephoned the emergency services. The ambulance service spoke to a female friend of Essayas who had entered the shop shortly before PH.  In the female friend’s statement about the night’s events, she said that when she walked over to the petrol station PH “told me that Essayas got hit. I asked how. She said by a bat. I asked her if she was lying. She said no”. It is noteworthy that this witness’s  immediate reaction to words from PH – someone she knew well - was to suspect that she might not be telling the truth.

Some witnesses have, moreover, claimed that PH was not actually present during the attack but only arrived on the scene afterwards. One of those charged with the murder (and acquitted) states PH “wasn’t there ..If she had been there, I would definitely have seen her as she would have stood out”. There was a good reason why she would have “stood out” to him. A salient fact which PH failed to mention in either of her statements was that as well as being a former girlfriend of the murder victim, she had been involved in relationships with at least two of the youths charged with the murder. She named both of these individuals in her statements to police without disclosing her previous relationships with them.

 Given these discrepancies, it is perhaps surprising that police and prosecution did not adopt a more sceptical attitude towards her alleged identification of Sam Hallam. In her first statement, she had not described anyone remotely matching his description. Despite purporting to recognise him immediately two days later, she was unable to provide even a single detail of what Sam Hallam was supposed to have been wearing on the night of the murder or what he had done.

PH’s motives for accusing Sam Hallam may be open to various interpretations but as shown above, there can be no doubt that she was capable of distorting and embellishing her account  of the night’s events and her own role in them.  BK

Having named Sam Hallam, PH - by her own admission - told her friend BK of her identification. In his first statement on 13^th October 2004, BK could not identify a white youth who had been on a BMX bike “because I never looked at him”.  After he was “reminded of his name” by PH, he named Sam Hallam as one of Essayas Kassahun’s assailants in his second statement on 20^th October 2004. Without this statement - disowned by BK at trial - there would be no case against Sam Hallam. (PH’s statement merely placed him at the scene without ascribing any specific actions to him.).

As outlined above, before 2004, if witnesses gave evidence at trial which contradicted any statements they made before the trial, those ‘previous inconsistent statements’ could not be put before the jury as evidence of the truth of their contents. Section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (which came into force on 29^th January 2004) abolished this rule. However, for any ‘previous inconsistent statement’ to be admitted in evidence, the witness must attend court to undergo examination and cross examination.  A consequence of section 119 in Sam Hallam’s case was that that from a police/prosecution perspective, the issue of what BK said at the trial was of secondary importance to the question of whether he attended. In the event, the prosecution’s ‘star’ witness against Sam Hallam proved highly reluctant to attend court. On the day he was due to testify, the court was informed that he had failed to appear and was refusing to leave his home. Police were dispatched to compel him to attend.

Information which has since emerged may help to explain BK’s reluctance. While he was awaiting trial on remand at Feltham Young Offenders Institution, Sam Hallam was extremely surprised to encounter BK as an inmate on the same wing. Sam raised concern about BK’s presence with staff. He was told that no-one of that name was being held there. This incident might be regarded as an unfortunate instance of mistaken identity (albeit that Sam Hallam was at school with BK) were it not for the account of a witness who in October 2005 accompanied her son while he was waiting to give evidence at the murder trial.  As they were waiting in an ante-room adjacent to the courtroom, she says BK was “dragged in” by police officers.  The officers told him not to move and then stood guard in the corridor outside. According to this witness, BK looked “terrified”. He asked if her son was there for “OId Street”. BK then said “Sam Hallam done it, didn’t he?” When her son answered in the negative, BK said that PH “said he was there”. Significantly, BK said he had just been released from custody and the police had told him that they would “put me back in Feltham if I don’t give evidence”. BK tried twice to leave the court building without giving evidence:- first from the ante-room to where he was brought back by police officers and later from the witness box. .

Police officers are rightly allowed to exercise force to compel witnesses to attend court. However, the above account would indicate that improper threats may have been made against BK. It would also suggest that officers involved with the case were aware of BK having been in custody (and that whatever charges he was facing had not been resolved by the time of Sam Hallam’s trial). This highly material information was not disclosed to Sam Hallam’s lawyers.

Why didn’t TH support Sam’s alibi?

The question may also be legitimately posed why TH who Sam Hallam said he was with at the time of the murder did not confirm his alibi. Immediately after Sam Hallam’s arrest, TH spoke with members of Sam’s family to assure them that he had been with Sam on the night in question. .

Why did TH that same day make a statement to police in which he denied having been with Sam Hallam on 11^th October? It is believed  that TH may have been prevailed upon by his own family not to become  involved in the case for fear that he too might be implicated in the murder. Such concerns - while disastrous for Sam Hallam - may not have been entirely fanciful. In at least one notorious miscarriage of justice case – the Guildford Four – a witness who approached police to confirm  he had been with one of the accused at the time of the murders found himself charged with complicity (and was only released when he withdrew his alibi statement).  

 /next