Fighting for change

IS it not strange that unfaithful footballers can use super injunctions to protect their privacy, yet the families of murder victims have their lives laid bare for all to see?

Brian and Ann Nicholl ask the question rhetorically and with bitter experience.

Six years ago tomorrow, their 19-year-old daughter, Jenny, left the family home in Richmond, North Yorkshire, saying she would not be back that night.

She failed to report for work two days later and was reported missing.

What began as a missing persons hunt soon became a murder inquiry.

After a huge police investigation, middleaged father-of-two David Hodgson was arrested and charged with Jenny’s murder.

He denied killing the teenager and a trial was held in Middlesbrough, in early 2008.

Mr and Mrs Nicholl both gave evidence, along with one of Jenny’s brothers and her closest friends.

During the five-week hearing, the intimate details of their lives – and Jenny’s – were revealed.

The trial was littered with references to drugs, sex and drinking.

Every salacious detail was reported by the press, including The Northern Echo.

Prompted by Hodgson, the defence team took every opportunity to put forward its own story behind Jenny’s disappearance.

They suggested that, far from being murdered by Hodgson, the teenager had run away from home to escape her abusive father.

Mr and Mrs Nicholl were both questioned at length about this possibility while giving evidence.

It was a tactic born out of Hodgson’s desperation to escape jail and the jury saw through it, finding him guilty of murder.

Sentencing the unemployed gardener to life in prison, Mr Justine Openshaw said this allegation was made “without the slightest shred of supporting evidence”.

However, the fact that the claim was made in the first place continues to cause pain.

Prompted by the treatment of murdered 13- year-old Milly Dowler’s family and the resulting public outcry, the Nicholls yesterday spoke publicly for the first time about their experiences.

Like the Nicholls, Milly’s parents were subjected to a detailed examination of their private lives by the killer’s lawyers.

The Nicholls said they understood the family’s desire to see Levi Bellfield endure a “living hell” while in prison.

“You see your family being questioned one by one about their lifestyle, every witness undergoing a character assassination, some of them reduced to tears afterwards and all while the defendant sits there and continues to build on the fabrication,” they said.

The couple say that the defence lawyers must have know it was implausible.

“Surely they must have, in future, a legal duty not to portray what they strongly suspect are lies, and if the defendant insists on it, they must make it absolutely clear it is an allegation made by the defendant.”

They say that the practice of lawyers “fearlessly”

representing their clients needs to be redefined.

“It is easily misinterpreted for getting away with absolutely any sort of wildcard suggestion, depicted as robust questioning.

“This is a very poor response, often heard from supposedly learned and professionallyqualified legal representatives.

“Indeed, Hodgson’s counsel appeared almost laughable at times, the questioning was so far fetched and we suggest they were very much aware of that.”

The Nicholls say that were they again to appear as witnesses, they would respond to the robust questioning with equally robust replies.

Apart from the help of police liaison officers, they say there is little guidance given to witnesses, apart from the requirement to tell the truth.

“As much as the cups of tea and administrative support offered by victim support is appreciated, the system falls well short of meaningful assistance to victims and witnesses, particularly in serious cases such as these.”

The media, again including The Northern Echo, are not without blame, say the couple.

They accuse the press of making them feel as if they were the ones on trial.

Lurid defence allegations reported with the addendum “it was said in court” suggest to the reader that the claim is true, the Nicholls say.

“There really needs to be much more clarity and emphasis on what is fact, what are allegations and the actual relevance to the case, not just the attempts at discrediting witnesses or the murder victim themselves.”

The couple ask if such intrusive questioning, as experienced by themselves and the Dowler family, is necessary.

If it is, they suggest reporting bans should be put in place to protect the privacy of victims, families and witnesses.

They say that the experience for members of their family, Jenny’s friends and other witnesses was so unpleasant that they would not be surprised if they refused to give evidence again if ever required to in the future.

AFTER Bellfield was found guilty of Milly Dowler’s murder, Milly’s father stated that their family had paid too high a price for this conviction.

The Nicholls said: “This is a damning and powerful statement. In our case, we often felt the same, but it was for Jenny that we felt we had to continue and I’m sure it was justice for Milly that drove her family to endure the appalling treatment they received.”

The couple hope that the outcry that has resulted from the treatment of Milly’s family will result in a change to the legal system to protect witnesses.

In the coming weeks, they plan to write to anyone who will listen to demand this change as soon as possible.

Whether the British legal system is willing to act remains to be seen. Any steps that could be viewed as reducing the chances of a defendant receiving a fair trial are likely to be resisted.

However, campaigners have proved that lawmakers will often listen to those who have lost the most.