John Illingworth, one of the longest serving Leeds City Councillors, has written to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to request them to re-open investigations into the conviction for handling stolen goods in 1981 of Tony Holland, a former MI6 agent an ex-Bradford businessman and now a millionaire living in Australia.
“I have now written formally to the CCRC asking them to re-open this case with a new investigator and specifically to look into Holland’s claims of police malpractice” said Illingworth, who is now in his 24th year as a Labour Councillor. If Illingworth is successful this will be the third time the CCRC will have examined the case.
The conviction of Holland at Bradford Crown Court on November 5th 1981 led to a sentence of 12 months imprisonment. This was subsequently reduced on appeal to 6 months in March 1982. On his release Holland quickly immigrated to Australia, although not before writing to local MP Geoffrey Dickens who referred the case to Holland’s own MP Edward Lyons on May 26th 1982. Holland has continued to protest his innocence ever since.
Illingworth has taken a keen interest in the case since being contacted by Holland approximately 8 years ago. “In truth I thought he [Holland] was having me on, I thought it might be some sort of stunt” but he “found that the bits I could check were true.”
For example, Holland had told him that he had been one of three directors in a Property Company called Vilindra. The other two directors were Bradford based solicitors Lumb[e] and Kenningham, whose firm Peter Sutcliffe approached for representation when charged with multiple counts of murder in January 1981.
Illingworth checked this out at Companies House and “sure enough he [Holland] was a director of the company” and “I could also check other newspaper stories at the time” about other things Holland had told him.
This led Illingworth to take keen interest in the actual case. Having had the time to read through the extensive casework and court reports on the case, Illingworth says that “I haven’t seen any solid evidence to convict him [Holland] with, when you look at a lot of things that were produced at his trial they don’t add up to a great deal.”
For example “there was identification of stolen goods which was said to be similar but not the same plaster board, goods like plasterboard is produced in millions of tonnes each year and they are all identical.”
Illingworth continues “they were things that anybody could buy at the local builders’ merchants.” Illingworth first referred the case to the CCRC in 1997, but it was four years before the CCRC got back to him as they said they were dealing with cases of people who were still in prison first.
But “when they finally produced a report it didn’t satisfy me, it wasn’t even logical” and “it wasn’t the sort of enquiry I had hoped to see.”
Illingworth says that he was quite prepared to accept arguments that Holland was guilty but instead “what you got was technical arguments about why things couldn’t be looked at. It wasn’t a proper examination; I hope other examinations by the CCRC are better than that.”
Holland was convicted as a result of evidence by odd-job man Melvin Hodgson, who was
19 years old at the time of the alleged offences. Holland denies having recruited Hodgson, who unknown to Holland had already been charged with a string of petty offences, to steal materials to be used in houses that Holland either owned or was renovating in the Bradford.
At the appeal hearing it was conceded by all 3 Appeal Judges that Hodgson had lied under oath. Nearly ten years later Hodgson was arrested by 12 officers from the Armed Response Unit in Bradford City centre after being accused of raping a prostitute. Whilst on remand he committed suicide in Armley Prison on December 28th 1991.
By this time the Australian MP and Deputy Premier of Victoria State Robert Fordham had began to enquire about Holland’s case and was in correspondence with the then Secretary of State David Waddington about it. Holland had become a successful businessman during his time in Australia. Interestingly, in spite of Australia having a policy of refusing entry to convicted criminals in the early 1980s Holland was allowed to settle there and take out Australian Citizenship.
Naturally, Hodgson’s death brought a possible line of enquiry to an end, but it opened another when the Bradford Coroner was not told of the Home Secretary’s interest in Hodgson.
Hodgson’s death didn’t however stop Holland in his campaign to clear his name. He has found himself hampered by West Yorkshire Police’s refusal to release a 300 page report which was drawn up at the time of his conviction.
Illingworth is deeply concerned about this. “It is very worrying that the CCRC has refused to release all the internal evidence, I gather that legally they’re not forced to but morally I would be very unhappy about any type of enquiry that didn’t release the whole of the internal evidence, it falls short of natural justice to Holland’s case. ” Illingworth is calling on the CCRC to release all the papers in the case.
Illingworth is also “concerned at the lack of accountability of senior police officers in this case, the apparent attempts by the police to control the flow of information to the courts and to Holland’s defence/appeal team”
Before he began work as a developer Holland had worked for Marconi in its overseas department, and where he alleges he was recruited to work for the security agency MI6. A proposed book written by Nick Hudson in collaboration with Holland and called ‘Just Among Friends – escapades with MI6 – and their aftermath’ was prevented from publication by Holland after he fell out with his publishers in Australia. The book was to be a follow up to Spycatcher, the controversial book from MI5 agent Peter Wright in 1986. SPYCATCHER was banned from bookshelves in Britain by the then Thatcher Government.
From his home in Melbourne Holland said “he welcomed” Illingworth’s attempts on his behalf and repeated his claims of innocence. “I remain determined to clear my name” said Holland.
© Mark Metcalf – May 8th 2003
Freelance Journalist and NUJ member
Mark
Metcalf
Freelance Journalist and Independent Publisher
PO Box 601
Sunderland SR2 7XY
07967 886257
Ruth
Bundey
Harrison Bundey Solicitors,
219 – 223 Chapeltown Road,
Leeds LS7 3DX
September 18th 2003
Dear Ruth Bundey,
I have tried to contact you in order to ask you a number of questions about the case of an ex-client of yours, Tony Holland. I have left a couple of messages but just in case you haven’t got my contact numbers they are above.
I am a Freelance Journalist and independent publisher
I have taken a keen interest in Tony Holland’s allegations after he made contact late last year. This followed the re-production on the web-site of an article I wrote for ‘The Morning Star’ dated November 2002 concerning mail and phone interference by the police and sections of the security services on members of the public involved in cases where there are allegations of Miscarriages of [in] Justice. [see Kennedy frame on rpm section for more details]
Since then I have had a number of articles on Holland’s case in various magazines including the Big Issue and the Australian Associated Press. I have also located a number of people living in the West Yorkshire area and interviewed them about Holland’s conviction in 1981 as well as Melvin Hodgson’s death in prison in 1991.
I am aware of Holland’s allegations against yourself and I am also aware that he intends to re-produce and circulate these to selected individuals at the end of this year, and I have no doubt that you will be aware that the cornerstone of his allegations are 1] That he was innocent, and as such he was set-up
2] That his team of representatives [including yourself] failed to properly represent him both at the trial, or at his later appeal
3] That Keith Hellawell, at the time head of discipline at West Yorkshire Police, blocked an investigation into his allegations against the officers involved in his arrest and prosecution.
4] That years later, when Melvin Hodgson had indicated his willingness to speak about Holland’s conviction, he was arrested and held on remand in Armley Prison, where he was subsequently found hanged in his cell. His family claim that Hodgson was innocent and that he intended to contest the charges against him.
I would welcome the opportunity to talk to you about this case at a time that is convenient to yourself. If it helps I have included some of the questions I would wish to ask of yourself and I invite you to answer them if you don’t have time for a face to face interview.
1] Is it true that before Holland approached you to represent him that the Deputy Police Prosecutor for Bradford, a Mr McCandlish, had told you about the case?
2] Were you aware that Holland had previously had a background of involvement in one or other of the security services?
3] Could you explain why after agreeing to attend the trial of Melvin Hodgson on July 17th 1981 you failed to turn up or to send anyone to witness the case?
4] Is it true that you told Tony Holland “the theft dates were clearly impossible” at the Magistrates Court on August 3rd 1981?
5] Is it the case that yourself and Ken Hind had agreed with Holland to contest the charges in the Magistrates Court but the non-appearance of Ken Hind resulted in the case moving forward to the Crown Court?
6] Did you write to the police, without as he alleges Holland’s written or oral permission, saying that Holland would only be contesting one of the charges against him?
7] Is it true that you refused to carry out Holland’s instructions to appeal against his conviction and only appealed against sentence?
8] Do you still have the papers in this case including the letter in which Holland claims he alleges you of being in ‘league with the police’, a charge which he is still maintaining 22 years later – a considerable time period if I may say so.
I look forward to hearing from you and as stated above I am willing to meet with you at a time that is convenient to yourself.
Yours faithfully,
Mark Metcalf