Michael Shields - Bulgaria

Fair Trials International has campaigned for the release of Michael Shields since his arrest in 2005. FTI was able to observe first hand Michael’s trial in Bulgaria, concluding that it was fundamentally flawed and that key defence evidence was not taken into account by the Bulgarian court.

On the 9th September 2009, Jack Straw finally pardoned Michael Shields.

Background

Michael Shields was 18 years old when he travelled to Turkey to watch Liverpool FC play in the Champions League final in May 2005. He attended the game as part of a package tour, which included a stopover in Bulgaria on the way back.

On 30 May 2005 at 5am a local man, Martin Georgiev, was attacked outside a café in Bulgaria, in an incident involving English football fans. He was badly beaten, suffering a fractured skull. Three hours later, local police arrived at Michael's hotel and arrested several English guests. Police later returned to the hotel to arrest Michael and another man.

Before an identification parade was conducted, the police gave Michael Shields a white t-shirt to wear, and then drove him past the café where witnesses still at the scene were able to clearly see him. He was then made to participate in an identification parade, during which he was handcuffed in front of the witnesses and lined up with people who looked dissimilar to him.

Michael’s trial, which commenced on the 21 July 2005, lasted for 3 days. He was found guilty of attempted murder and sentenced to 15 years’ in prison. Two other men were convicted of lesser public order offences while one was released without trial.

After returning to England, another Liverpool man admitted to the crime and signed a confession stating that it was he who had attacked the victim. Although the Bulgarian courts were made aware of this conviction, they refused to take it into account, and Michael’s conviction was allowed to stand.

In 2006, Michael Shields was transferred back to the UK to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Although Bulgarian authorities stated publicly that the UK may issue a pardon further to Michael’s prisoner transfer, Jack Straw had initially denied that he had the power to do so. In December 2008 the High Court ruled that the Home Secretary did indeed have the authority to grant a Royal Pardon and free Michael.

In July 2009, Jack Straw provisionally refused Michael’s pardon application. Following this provisional decision, Fair Trials International, as well as Michael’s lawyers, wrote to Jack Straw to outline key exculpatory evidence. There was also increasing political pressure on the Home Secretary to review his position. Having readdressed the evidence and another man's confession , Mr Straw decided that the new information was compelling enough to meet the high standard required to issue a pardon. On the 9th September 2009, Jack Straw granted a Royal Pardon for Michael.

FTI Concerns

FTI sent an observer to the trial, who noted the following:

• Flawed identification evidence:
  Michael’s conviction turned primarily on identification evidence. The nature of the evidence and the manner in which it was gathered was fundamentally flawed. Michael was not segregated from the victim and witnesses before the parade. Other witnesses were later asked to identify Michael when he was in the dock at court. Although this would be inadmissible in the UK, it was taken to be positive identification in the Bulgarian court.

• Conflicting witness statements:
  The evidence given by café staff regarding the attack conflicted with other eye witness accounts. Five witnesses, including Michael's two roommates, a representative from the hotel and two other men, have stated that Michael was not at the scene of the incident. This evidence was rejected along with further evidence that Michael was asleep in the hotel at the time of the incident.

• Breach of the principle of equality of arms:
  It was noted at the trial that none of the points raised by the defence were considered; on the other hand, all suggestions by the prosecution were followed. There was an evident bias against Michael in the gathering and presentation of ID evidence. There were some extraordinary admissions of evidence by the trial judge, for example a letter from the prison governor expressing his opinion that a pre-trial haircut request had been made by the defendant for the sole purpose of avoiding recognition. This was admitted at court without calling the governor to give evidence.

• Refusal to take into account the confession of one of the prime suspects:
  A prime suspect, who was known to have been present at the scene of the crime, was released without charges. At the time of the trial, he signed a written confession in front of his British solicitor. Although this evidence was made available to the Bulgarian courts, insufficient efforts were made to secure his appearance at court, and the courts refused to take his confession into account.

• Absence of forensic evidence:
  No forensic evidence was available at the trial. In particular, there was no DNA evidence to link Michael to the large rock that had been used in the attack. No CCTV footage of Michael’s movements in the hotel exists; the electronic swipe records for Michael’s room key were also not available. In the absence of DNA evidence, these were the only reliable and objective pieces evidence as to Michael’s whereabouts.