The Newsagent Three: A Miscarriage of Justice w/ Michael O’Brien

In this episode, we explore one of the UK’s most troubling miscarriages of justice — the case of the Newsagent Three.

Wrongfully convicted of murder in 1990, three men — including today’s guest, Michael O’Brien — spent years behind bars for a crime they did not commit. Their case would go on to expose serious flaws in the criminal justice system, from unreliable confessions to failures in evidence handling.

Michael joins us to share his story — from arrest and conviction to eventual release — and the lasting impact it’s had on his life.

This is a conversation about injustice, resilience, and the long road to truth.

📚 Resources & Links

📖 Michael O’Brien’s Book

✍️ Bed and Board Petition
https://c.org/S5TdHWpL5V

Where You Can Find Us

Our brand-new website is now live! Visit us at welsh-mysteries.co.uk.

For more information about the podcast and host, head to welsh-mysteries.co.uk.

Follow us on Instagram — @welshmysteries

 and on TikTok — @welshmysteries

If you enjoy the podcast or find value in what we do, you can support us by buying a coffee through our Ko-Fi account.

Work With Us

If there’s a particular case you’d like me to cover, please get in touch via email.

I’m also open to business collaborations and sponsorship opportunities at:

 📧 kay@kay-page.com

🕯️ New episodes drop every Monday.

Transcript

speaker-0 (00:00.398)
Picture the scene. It's 1987. Margaret Thatcher has just been elected to her third term as Prime Minister, having won that year's election in June. It has been a decade of upheaval, and the loss of the Miner Strike is still being felt throughout Wales. The men have gone back to work, but not to what once was. Pits are closing despite the best efforts

of the formerly striking miners. Life feels uncertain and entire communities are quietly recalibrating what life looks like now. There's a sense of something ending, even if no one quite knows what comes next, what people will do for jobs once the pits and their rich legacies have gone. We are in Cardiff for this episode, outside of the main coal fields, but deeply connected to them. The capital city has always been an economic

powerhouse, one that was built on the coal industry with the first ever million pound cheque in the world having been signed there as payment for that valuable coal. Let's focus in on one particular house in Cardiff, the home of Michael O'Brien's sister-in-law Mandy. It's the 1st of November 1987 at 8.30am and Michael, along with his wife and his sister, are sitting inside that home.

on the sofa, probably drinking a morning cup of tea. For now, everything is normal, but then comes a knock on the door. The sister-in-law and the person whose home it is gets up from a seating position and walks towards the door to open it. Before she has a chance, the door falls inward. It's the police, and to the shock of all inside, they are there to make an arrest. Stood in front of the seat where he just been sitting,

Michael O'Brien is handcuffed, his heart plummeting to his stomach. A little while earlier, he had been involved in the theft of a car and he is horrified by the scene unfolding, but also shocked. After all, the house is now swarming with police and while it's too noisy and busy to think straight, something about the situation feels off. It feels like an overreaction for a stolen vehicle.

speaker-0 (02:24.438)
And then, in an instant, his life changes. All it took was one sentence, an utterance of words from the police officer who is now gripping his handcuffed hands. Michael O'Brien, I am arresting you on suspicion of murder. You do not have to say anything. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

speaker-0 (03:21.688)
Today's episode is a little bit different because we have a guest, something I've never done on this podcast before. So let's start with him introducing himself.

speaker-1 (03:32.664)
My name is Michael O'Brien. I was known as one of the Cardiff News Agents III when my two co-accused, Ellie Sherwood and Darren Hall, and we were only convicted of the murder of Philip Saunders in 1987. We served 12 years, just under 12 years, before we got our names cleared after a BBC documentary was made and the CCRC, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, referred our case back to the Court of Appeal because of significant new evidence which wasn't available at the time of the trial.

undermined our wrongful conviction, know, our conviction and we proved at the Court of Appeal that we were wrongly convicted. Work I've done since I've come out, you know, I championed the cause of many innocent people. I mean, I was one of the first persons to mention about Barry George. You might remember the Jill Dando case very well. I mean, I was the one who said that, you know, he reminded me of my co-accused. He didn't have the mental capacity to carry out such a...

you know, a precise killing, know, a professional hit, if you like. That's what many people and people like me believe. That's what it was. I'm working on the Lucy Letme case as we speak. You know, I mean, I've been involved in that for a number of years. And I'm also calling for a big judicial inquiry into all the miscarriages of justice cases in Wales, because there's been no accountability in any of these cases.

and the statistics show that not one police officer in Wales or solicitor or the CPS have been held accountable for these deliberate miscarriages of justices because that's what some of them are. They're deliberate. Some of them may be mistakes, but in my particular case, in the Cardiff Five case, they were deliberate miscarriages of justices.

speaker-0 (05:24.654)
As always, I will be telling you the story, but Michael's voice will be interjected to help tell it too, because after all, who's better placed to aid in the storytelling than someone who is intrinsically intertwined with this case? This case is now almost 40 years old, but Michael assures me that there is still information out there and that despite everything, there is a chance of this case being solved.

but we'll get into that a little bit later in the episode. For now, let's start at the beginning with who Philip Saunders was, who Michael O'Brien is, and how their paths eventually aligned. Philip Saunders was a quiet, unmarried man who owned a series of kiosks in Cardiff. He was known to those around him as steady and honest, someone who kept himself to himself, but who was well-liked. In 1987, at the time of the murder,

He was 52 years old. There is nothing remarkable about his life in the way we tend to define it. He worked, kept to a routine, and was part of his community. And when he died, very little was said publicly about who he was. There were no real tributes at the time, and very little in the years that followed, even after men were convicted of his murder. And as I wrote this episode, it was painfully difficult to find

very much information about him, other than that already given. His family remained silent for nearly two decades, but when they did eventually speak, the absence of answers was still conscious to them.

speaker-1 (07:05.482)
victims, you know, I'm the secondary victim because of what happened to Philip Saunders, happened to me afterwards, you know, so I'm the secondary victim. I always say this to people, we must never lose track who the real victims and all this are. The true victims is Philip Saunders' family and when I met him and when you see the program and you see how emotional it was for all three of us, I think you'll see how much it meant to all of us that we sat down and you know,

I wanted to speak to him for a long time and tell him, listen, they've led you up the garden path. The system hasn't been truthful to you. You know what mean? You've been lied to, you know? And there's no easy way of saying that to him, because it's very hurtful in one sense, because they've always had this notion that, three men went to prison. They must have been guilty because of duty, found them guilty. And then they found out later on, years later, that he wasn't guilty. I mean, there must have been a...

horrendous for the family to have to accept.

speaker-0 (08:08.448)
His nephew would later describe this as something that never leaves you, something you carry with you every day. He remembered his uncle simply as a nice, honest person who couldn't do anyone any harm. And for his family, the question of what really happened has never been resolved. At the time of his death in October 1987, Philip Saunders was a news agent who owned three kiosks in Cardiff City.

These kiosks sold various on-the-go essentials, such as cigarettes, newspapers, and sweets. For younger listeners, a news kiosk was a small street-side stall selling newspapers and magazines, usually packed with a day's headlines, clipped for everyone to see. It's where people grab their news quickly, often on the way to work, and where big stories first hit the public eye.

On the 12th of October 1987 at around 9.30pm Saunders closed one of his kiosks, the one in Cardiff Central Bus Station, and withdrew that day's takings from inside. It has since been reported that he was a creature of habit and that based on other incident details to be disclosed soon, it was widely known that he tended to carry cash on his person following his visits to the kiosk.

It was estimated that on the night in question he was carrying roughly £500. On the way home he stopped at the Albert pub on St Mary Street, choosing a soft drink for himself. Again, this was said to have been fairly routine for him. He stayed there for a little while, leaving between 11 and 11.05pm to head to his home address in Canton Cardiff. It is now believed that his killer

having an understanding of his routine, was waiting for him, armed with a shovel. At 11.19 p.m., his neighbor rang 999, reporting that she had heard a thud next door and ongoing to investigate, had found the body of Philip Saunders. When the police arrived, they found that Philip was actually clinging to life. Quote, Mr. Saunders was found unconscious and severely injured. He was taken to hospital, but he died five days later.

speaker-0 (10:26.73)
after his life support machine was turned off." End quote. It has since been reported and is now common knowledge in this case that Philip Saunders had actually become a routine and regular victim of crime in the months before his murder, hence the previous comment about it being well known that he carried cash. The police would later speculate that his routine had been his downfall with those who were familiar able to pin down his location.

In fact, detectives later stated that he was a sitting duck. When the police found him, the money was missing and it is now accepted that it is the motive for the case. Interestingly, next to the body, the police found a bottle of whiskey that was almost full but appeared to have a few sips missing. That the motive was robbery was a theory that the police developed really early on and they believed that he had been hit in a bid to avoid being identified. Quote,

They said the attack followed an attempted break-in at Mr Saunders' home a week earlier and another within the preceding month. He had also been attacked outside his home two years earlier.

speaker-1 (11:37.422)
And my research, since I've been writing my books and everything, he was a well-liked person. He was a hard worker. He worked his socks off. I found out some really disturbing information that he was targeted by a number of criminals. don't know whether you know, between 1983 and 1987, he was attacked at least 22 times. had burglaries at his property. People were confronting him. They broke into his house. And the police didn't protect him.

they should have protected him and that's another very disclosing thing I found in my research. But we were still in school when he was being attacked and everything in 1983. I didn't leave school until 1984, 85. So you know he was being targeted because the people knew he had money and I do agree with the police on this. Whoever killed Philip Saunders knew he had money on him. They must have watched him. I do believe that. I do believe their narrative on that part of the case is correct.

you know, because they, you know, he had a familiar routine he used to do according to the police and what they said. And if that is correct, then, you know, then that's probably what, you know, somebody attacked him because they knew he had money on him. There's no doubt about it. We didn't know anything about Philip Saunders. I didn't know where he worked. I didn't know anything. It was only when the police said a man in the kiosk, and I do remember having a, buying the watch in the kiosk, you know, my wife did.

And that's the only reason I could refer to him. You know, I didn't know his name was Philip Saunders. I didn't know anything about him, where he lived. I didn't know anything about the gentleman.

speaker-0 (13:15.662)
colleague of Mr Saunders told the South Wales Echo on Tuesday the 13th, Whoever it was did manage to get in three weeks ago, so I assume they did take something. And last Friday there was another attempt to get in. He's been subject to a fair amount of harassment." quote. Within a couple of days, a reward of around 3,000 was being offered by Mr Saunders's family. A national newspaper

and an anonymous businessman for information leading to an arrest and conviction." The pathology report was written by Professor Bernard Knight and it found that Mr Saunders had quote, received five blows to the head, each delivered with very great force. His skull was shattered. The spade found in the garden in Professor Knight's opinion could have caused all or any of the injuries, end quote.

The police's investigation began in much the same way that most others do, with house to house inquiries. In total, 50 detectives made door to door inquiries, but this rose to 75 within the month. While forensic specialists examined a quote, bloodstained implement, end quote, found at the scene. That was of course the spade. On the 15th of October, the South Wales Echo reported that the police had issued a description

of a man they wanted to speak with. It was reported that this man was seen behind Mr Saunders' house at 11.15pm. It said, he is described as a slimly built white male, about five foot 10 inches tall, with a full head of dark curly hair. He was wearing a dark blouson style jacket and dark trousers. Shortly afterwards, he was seen walking through the lane towards Atlas Road.

The description was issued after intensive house to house inquiries in the area and it is the best lead detectives have come up with." It's important to point out here that this sighting only puts one person at the scene. A few days later, they reported that it was believed Mr Saunders had been attacked by a single person who was known to Mr Saunders.

speaker-0 (15:28.45)
The news agent was seen talking to a man at the rear of his house and later inside his back garden. know that Mr Saunders was not the type of person to allow anyone into his home without knowing the person, said Mr Carsey. The victim's keys were found at the back door. At the moment, we must assume on all the facts available to us, there is a strong possibility Mr Saunders knew his attacker, said Mr Carsey. The detective's belief that the news agent knew his attacker

is underlined by the appalling injuries he suffered.

speaker-1 (16:00.91)
He was a stranger to me at that time. I did have one dealing with it, which the police made a big song and dance about. When they told me that he was the guy who worked in the kiosk in town centre, I remember my wife buying a watch from him for a tenner for my birthday and it didn't work. We took it back and he was quite abrupt with us. And the police tried to make out, I was a reason to kill him then. I went, no, for a £10 watch.

So because of my honesty and I told them that I had that dealing with them, they tried to make a big song and dance about it. Now, you know, he might have had an off day, he might have had a bad day, who knows? I don't know. You know, but he wouldn't change the watch and I just thought, well, it's only a 10 pound watch, I'm not gonna... And we just walked away, you know. He tried to exchange it, he wasn't having any of it and that was the only dealing I ever had with Philip.

speaker-0 (16:51.598)
The injuries were so terrible that he may have done it to avoid identification. This is one of the most brutal and savage attacks I have ever encountered." On the 28th of October, an inquest was opened and adjourned. That same day, a new description was released, this time in relation to the burglary of Mr Saunders' home. He was described as white, 5 foot 10 inches to 5 foot 11 inches, very thin and extremely bow-legged.

The hope being that perhaps one of the previous offenders might be the person that they were seeking or at the very least be the missing link to their prime suspect. It's at this point that the paths of Michael O'Brien and Philip Saunders begin to converge. So who is Michael and who was he at the time? Michael O'Brien was born in Cardiff in 1967 and raised on one of the largest council estates in the country and indeed in Europe. He was the second of six children.

brought up by his mother Marlene and his Irish-born stepfather Jimmy. His biological father had left when he was young, someone he barely knew. His childhood was shaped by hardship, but not defined by it. Money was tight, often painfully so, and life at home could be volatile. His stepfather struggled with alcoholism and could be violent, particularly towards Michael's mother. These were not isolated incidents, but unfortunately, part of the fabric of their daily lives.

As a boy, Michael was known in the area. He worked from a young age, paper rounds before most people were awake, helping neighbours where he could, earning what he could to contribute at home. He was visible, familiar, part of the community. School offered little escape. He was bullied persistently and it affected him greatly. Any real opportunity for education slipped away early.

By his late teens, his life had begun to take a different shape. He met Donna, and the two quickly formed a close relationship. Despite the instability around them, they built something together. By the age of 20, Michael was married and a father to a young son, Kyle. He was working where he could, first in a pub, then in a supermarket, through a government scheme, later as a painter and decorator. The work was modest, but steady. Housing was uncertain.

speaker-0 (19:15.884)
Like many young families, they moved between bedsits, hostels and shared accommodations, whatever they could afford. They were living hand to mouth, managing day by day. But there was also a sense, at least for a time, that things were beginning to settle, that he was building something that resembled stability. On paper, Michael O'Brien was an ordinary young man, a husband, a father, someone trying within the limits of his circumstances to make a life for himself and his family.

On the night that Philip Saunders was attacked, Michael O'Brien was out in Cardiff with Ellis Sherwood and a man he'd only just met that day, Darren Hall. They hadn't set out to commit murder, but they had set out to commit a crime.

speaker-1 (20:01.922)
I was years of age when all this happened to me when we were first arrested and it's etched in my memory everything what happened and as I've said to people I was no angel I was out on the 19th question trying to fit in and be one of the boys trying to steal a car but that's all we were trying to do there's a big difference to murder there's a big big difference

And I had a job, I had a wife, I had children at home and everything and yes, I should have been home with my wife, I should have been a better husband, I accept that, you know what mean, I accept my failings. I didn't deserve to be framed for murder.

speaker-0 (20:41.282)
Michael had gone to see Ellis at his sister's flat in Maitland Place. Darren was already there. Someone Ellis himself had only just met. He'd come along with another man helping to carry in shopping and had stayed for a drink. It was Darren who said he could steal cars. The idea was simple. Find a car, take it and go for a drive. Ellis was keen. Plans were made quickly. They agreed to pick up another friend, Richard Yates, on the way

and looked for a car as they went. Darren changed his mind. He said he was going to stay at a nearby friend's house and left. Michael and Ellis carried on.

speaker-1 (21:22.092)
Well, I remember on the night in question it was raining. I remember having a grey tracksuit on, I can remember that quite clearly because the police took it and everything for testing and everything. We walked approximately two and a half miles to call for a friend of ours. Darren said he could drive. We didn't know if he could or not. He was just so full of lies. We didn't know. So we walked around Canton and Cardiff looking in.

car packs to try and steal a car because Darren said he could drive. Anyway, to cut the long story short, we ended up in Fairwater Grove, which is about two and a half miles away from where Philip Saunders was murdered. And at the time of the murder, we actually had an alibi witness. We were actually at somebody's house and our defence didn't call her as a witness. her name was Sylvia Yates. She could prove that one, we didn't have no blood on our clothes. One, two, we didn't have no money bag. Three, Darren Hall had just left us.

And she said the reason how she knows what time we call because it was a program called the glass program, which was on ITV at 1130. So she knew when it started. So it would have taken in nine minutes, we would have had to run three miles in about nine minutes. Now bearing in mind, Darren Hall had problems with his feet. So have I, I can't run very fast.

because I've had problems on my feet and Darren Hall had serious problems with it. So none of us could run. The key issue for me is why didn't that defense call and why didn't the police call our witness? Because she could have proved what time we got to the house and it couldn't have been us.

speaker-0 (23:07.274)
Later, with Richard Yates, they found a car, took it and drove it, before eventually returning home. That, Michael would later say, was the extent of what happened that evening. But in the weeks that followed, that version of events would be called into question. Before the arrest of their prime suspects, the police were said to have arrested 42 people, with them having targeted known criminals. According to Michael,

Their suspect list was stoked with people who had form for robbery or other theft and dishonesty charges, even blackmail, but they were others with violent histories. One had been done for striking someone with an axe.

speaker-1 (23:50.38)
can't remember if it was word of mouth or what we'd seen in the news because I think it was big news at the time. And I remember saying, me and Ellis were having a chat about it and saying about this, you know, and we did realize it was the night we were out trying to steal cars. And yeah, it did cross our minds that, you know, because Ellis had a bit of a criminal record. I didn't have no criminal record. I still haven't by the skin of my teeth. I don't know how that happened, but by the skin of my teeth, I'm a very lucky man.

But the fact is, we did realize that it was on the night in question. And Ellis did say to me that if the police come to you, just give them a different route. So we lied about the route we took. So that didn't look good for us. I got to be honest with you, you know? But I didn't think nothing of it. I thought, well, I'm not getting done for murder. I haven't done anything like, you know? You know, I was more worried about what we did do, which was stealing the car. I was more concerned about that.

I know it might sound a bit odd, but I knew what we had done that night and I knew what we hadn't done that night. And I think that was very important to us. I've to be honest with you, I regret stealing that car. I mean, I've gone over it in my head so many times. If I never stole that car on the night in question, none of this would have happened. And I do sort of blame myself to a degree. I brought about my own downfall because I went on the police radar by doing that.

So, you I got to take some responsibility in some respects, but I didn't deserve what happened afterwards.

speaker-0 (25:26.648)
Then on the 1st of November, the three men were arrested and one week later they were charged with Philip Saunders' murder.

speaker-1 (25:36.43)
Well, I can remember the first of November when I was down my sister's the doors out. Me and my wife stayed down at the sisters and Ellis was living there as well. That's her brother, my wife's brother as well. And the door got kicked in. And the first I knew that we were suspects, real suspects, was when they come into the front room and they said, are you Michael O'Brien? I said, yes, why?

And he said, we're arresting you for the murder of Philip Saunders. And I said, well, who the F &L is Philip Saunders? Didn't have a clue who they were talking about. You know, I was dumbstruck and we got frog-matched out of the house. And they were saying things to me like, you you're going to get 20 years for this. We're going to make sure you, you know, they can bring back hacking for people like you. I was terrified. I was handcuffed. I was put into the car.

There was police all outside the house. I've never seen anything like it. I was terrified. I was absolutely terrified. I was conveyed to Canton police station where I was left for long periods of time. was handcuffed to hot radiators. was denied access to water and food, denied access to a lawyer. I was also handcuffed to a table for a long period of time. I was being interviewed off the record. They're interviewing me without my lawyer present.

It messed me up that bad that I was in the police custody for three days before they released us, pending further inquiries. And I ended up in the mental hospital because of the damage they done to me. I was really, really taken back by what had occurred in that police station in Canton. I mean, it took me about three or four days to come out with a mental hospital. You know, they convinced me that everything was going to be all right. They were just pulling in everybody, but I had this gut feeling.

They were after Ellis, my co-accused, and they made it clear they were going to get him. But to get Ellis, they would have to get to me as well. And this is what they did. And on the 10th of November, no, the 9th of November, sorry, I went to my sister's in Cardiff and I said, the police are coming for us again. I've been told that they're coming for us. the copper who was, one of the coppers was following me and I had a confrontation with him on the bus.

speaker-1 (27:56.974)
and was following me home and everything. And he said, if I didn't say that it was Alice Sherwood who'd done it, he'd make sure we all went down. And I went to my sisters after that saying they're coming for us. And the next day, that's exactly what happened. The 10th of November, the nightmare began again. And they come to my mother's house where I was in the front room. My mother said, and where are you taking my son? Oh, we're charging him with murder. They already made up their mind they were charging us with murder, even before they...

interviewed us for the second time and There was a number of witnesses who said they had seen us in town spending money from the robbery and Two witnesses in particular I won't mention their names for legal reasons, you know, just a no protect your podcast But it is in the public domain who they are and But there's only one problem with that Ellis Sherwood was locked up the night before

I wasn't with him when he'd done something else. He stole another car with somebody else and he was in the magistrate courts and he was locked up in the cell. So how could he be in town spending money and bragging about it when he had the cast iron alibi? Yet that was overlooked and they still used his evidence. They still used their evidence. I mean, it's extraordinary.

speaker-0 (29:17.89)
The next section is from Michael's book. Quote, one of the officers said, quote, we can do what we like, end quote. He looked at me and said, quote, are you Michael O'Brien, end quote. And I replied, yes. He said, quote, I have come to arrest you on suspicion of murdering Philip Saunders, end quote. I couldn't take in what this officer was saying. I was shocked, terrified and angry, quote.

I don't even know the guy you're talking about." I said. I was grabbed by the other police officers. They slapped a pair of handcuffs on me and frog marched me out of the front door into a waiting police car. They'd brought along three cars and more than a dozen police officers for the job. I was placed in the back of a car and driven a couple of miles to Canton police station for questioning. We got to the police station at about 8.50 a.m.

I was taken to the custody sergeant in the custody suite where I was told to hand over all my possessions. I did so out of fear, not knowing what my rights were. I signed a form to confirm my property and was taken upstairs and placed in a room waiting to be questioned. I was scared. I did not know what was happening to me. I knew we were innocent. So what were we doing here?" End quote.

Upon arriving at the police station, Michael was waiting for what felt like an eternity. When officers finally returned, it was clear from the outset that this was not going to be straightforward. He was moved between rooms, placed briefly in a cell, then taken back upstairs to wait again, alone. The interviews that followed were relentless. At times, he was restrained, handcuffed to radiators or furniture while officers came and went. The tone shifted constantly.

Some were aggressive, others more measured. But the message remained the same. They believed he was involved. He was told that others had already implicated him, that he may as well admit it, that he was going down regardless. It was pressure, sustained, deliberate and unyielding. Michael maintained that he was innocent. And a question in, however.

speaker-0 (31:29.332)
did admit to something else. On the night Philip Saunders was killed he and others had stolen that car. It was, he said, the reason he had initially been evasive. He was trying to conceal that offence. He gave details of where the car had been taken from, who had been involved and what had happened afterwards. According to his account they had taken the car for a short time before abandoning it and returning home. He insisted that Darren Hall, who would later become central to the case, had not been with them at that time.

For Michael, this was the truth of that night, but it was not the version of events that the police were building. Michael was questioned by multiple officers coming in and out of the room, each taking a different approach. Some were direct, others more calculated, but the message was consistent. They believed Ellis Sherwood was responsible and that Michael was involved. At this stage, he was denied access to both his family

solicitor. He was transported to Anstey Court to the scene of the attack and asked to account for his movements. Disorientated and under pressure, he tried to piece together what he could remember. He recalled being in the area at some point but was clear he had not been there for any attack. But when he returned to the station that account had shifted in the eyes of the police. What he said tentatively

was now being treated as something more definitive. As the questioning continued, the pressure intensified. Officers told him that others had already implicated him, that Darren Hall had confessed, and that he may as well now tell the truth. At one point, an officer wrote up a note of a conversation on the back of a police expense form, recording what was presented as an admission. Michael did not recognise it as such. To him, it bore little resemblance to what had actually been said.

We'll get onto that when we get to the court case. After hours of questioning, he was eventually allowed to see a solicitor. By that point, he was exhausted, frightened, and struggling to think clearly. He had been held for over 36 hours before being released on bail. But even outside the station, the pressure didn't stop. Michael describes feeling watched, followed in public, approached again by officers who told him...

speaker-0 (33:50.552)
They knew he hadn't committed the murder, but the others had. The situation began to take its toll. Overwhelmed and unable to process what was happening, he reached a breaking point. A week later, he was arrested again. This time, along with the two others, he was charged with the murder and robbery of Philip Saunders. The case against them would come to centre on one name in particular, Darren Hall, whose confession would become the foundation of everything that followed.

Paul was only 18 years old at the time. Someone Michael had met only hours before the events of that evening. His account to police, however, would place him and the others at the centre of that attack. He went on to tell police officers that he had acted as a lookout while Michael O'Brien and Ellis Sherwood carried out the assault on Philip Saunders. It was a statement that would go on to underpin the entire prosecution case. But from the outset,

There were inconsistencies. Before placing himself at the scene, Hall had given multiple conflicting accounts of his movements that night. He variously claimed to have been drinking in Grangetown, then Canton, then Splott, before later saying he had been at Cardiff Bastation. Each version different, each one abandoned. When he was finally questioned in relation to the murder, his account continued to shift.

In early interviews he denied involvement. In later ones he began to change his position, first admitting he had lied, then placing himself at the scene. From there, his version of events evolved repeatedly. At times he claimed to be present but not involved, at others he suggested different combinations of people. On one occasion he even altered the basic details

of how the attack had taken place. The number of interviews and the changes between them became a defining feature of his evidence. And this matters because false confessions are not uncommon, particularly before pace laws were enforced and particularly among young or vulnerable suspects. Under sustained pressure, some individuals will say what they believe investigators want to hear. Others may become confused, compliant, or convinced over time

speaker-0 (36:07.256)
that they must have been involved in some way. Years later, it would emerge that Hall had been suffering from antisocial personality disorder and was known to exaggerate. During key stages of his questioning, he had no access to a solicitor. He was interviewed repeatedly over extended periods and at times restrained, handcuffed to a radiator. It would also come to light that he had previously confessed to offences that he had not committed. Despite this, his account remained central.

Even as questions were raised about the reliability of his statements, the conditions under which they were obtained and the number of times his story had changed, his confession continued to underpin the case against all three men. A case built in a large part on the words of an 18-year-old whose account had never remained the same for long. The trial began on the 27th of June 1988 at Cardiff Crown Court and would last just under three weeks.

From the outset, was an unusual case. Darren Hall, whose confession had become central to the prosecution, attempted to plead guilty to robbery and manslaughter, but that plea was rejected. The prosecution were pursuing a full murder conviction and the trial would only proceed on that basis. Michael O'Brien and Ellis Sherwood both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution case put forward by Jared Ellis QC

was that the three men had acted together. They had planned to rob Philip Saunders, followed him to his home in Ansey Court, and carried out the violent attack, striking him repeatedly to the head with a weapon before taking the money. The jury heard details of the attack in stark terms. A pathologist described multiple severe head injuries consistent with repeated blows from a heavy object. It was described as a sustained and forceful assault. But beyond the brutality of the crime itself,

The case against the three men rested largely on testimony. There was no forensic evidence linking them to the scene. Instead, the prosecution relied purely on accounts, many of which would later come under scrutiny. Central to all of this was Darren Hall and his confession. The jury heard his confession, but he acted as a lookout while others carried out the attack. He described waiting nearby, watching as the events unfolded and later,

speaker-0 (38:28.898)
reuniting with them after the incident. But even within his own evidence, there were inconsistencies. Again, had given multiple conflicting statements, changing his account not only of what had happened, but of who had been involved and how. Despite this, his confession remained central to the prosecution. Alongside Hall's evidence, the court also heard from Christopher Chick, a convicted criminal who claimed that Ellis Sherwood had confessed to him the day after the murder.

Chick told the court that Sherwood had spoken about attacking a news agent and taking money. He described conversations in which details of the crime were allegedly shared and boasted about. But, and across examination, his evidence shifted. He denied fabricating his account for financial reward or to get any reduction in his sentence. At the time, he was serving a 12-month sentence.

He did however acknowledge that there was a reward offered. He also admitted that he had been on the run at the time and under pressure when giving evidence. More significantly, it emerged during cross-examination that parts of his statement had been influenced, that references had been added or shaped during police interviews, and that concerns had been raised about pressure being applied both to him and others connected to him.

Other witnesses gave similar accounts, claiming to have overheard conversations or seen behaviour they believed to be suspicious. Some spoke of seeing the three men with large sums of money. Others described conversations that appeared to reference the crime. But many of these witnesses had prior convictions. All themselves had been in custody at the time. Their reliability was already being questioned. Then there was the evidence of Detective Inspector Stuart Lewis.

He told the court that while the men were being held in police cells, he'd overheard a conversation between O'Brien and Sherwood. According to Lewis, O'Brien had said, quote, I can't hold out much longer. I may have to tell them, end quote. He claimed to have written this down at the time on the back of a police expenses form. By the time the case reached appeal, that note could no longer be located.

speaker-1 (40:49.294)
They got Darren Hall to confront me and say, well, I've told them the truth, Michael. And I said, well, what you've been saying. And I recall saying something like, you know, I'm going to get you in a minute. Like, you know what I mean? Because you're lying. Of course I'm going to get angry. Of course I wanted to give him a clout. Of course I wanted to hit him. He was lying. He was putting us away for murder. I knew he didn't do it. I know that's not the right thing to do. I was only 19.

I didn't have the mental capacity to be rational. Yet I wanted to get him because I knew he was lying. And the police played a big song and dance about him confronting us and saying he'd done it. But what they didn't tell people is he'd done 14 different confessions, implicating other innocent people. And if they had never had alibis, they would have been dragged into this as well. So they told us about that on the whole. Then they told us about they know we stole a car on the night in question.

Now when I first went in the police station, I did say to him, I lied in my first six pages and I told him why, because we stole the car. And I was open and honest from that moment on. said, listen, I didn't want to get done for the car. I don't know anything about any murder. I just know we could steal this. You know, I allowed myself to be carried in a stolen vehicle. They stole it. I was with them, you know? And that was it. But they didn't want to know about the car.

they weren't interested, it was the murder they were going on about. And they told me that if I didn't implicate Ellis Sherwood, I was going down for 20 years at the very least. And they were adamant. Now I know Ellis had a little bit of a criminal record, not for violence or anything like that, commercial burglaries and cars and stuff like that. I'm not playing it down by any stretch of the imagination. don't want people to think, you know, because it is wrong, whatever way you look at it.

But it's also wrong just because somebody's got a bit of a criminal record that you want to pin a murder on. That's totally wrong and out of order. And I knew Ellis, if Ellis would have done it, I would have told the police he'd done it. I'll be honest with you. There's no way I would stand back if I was with anyone and allow something like that to happen. I would have gone straight to the police myself.

speaker-1 (43:10.35)
But I knew Ellis and Darren were innocent 100 % because they were with me. It was impossible I mean impossible not improbable impossible for them to have done that crime because we were three nearly two and a half Well, I think I think I'll have to look at the logistics I think was two and a half to three three miles something like I can't remember exactly I know it was a Yeah, you know

but I know we couldn't have done it in the time allowed.

speaker-0 (43:43.438)
The defence argued that none of this evidence, individually or collectively, proved that the three men had carried out the attack. They pointed to the lack of forensic evidence, the inconsistencies in Hall's account, and the unreliability of that witness testimony. The defence maintained that while Michael and Ellis had admitted being involved in car theft, they had not been involved in any attack on Philip Saunders. But the jury was left to decide.

After six and a half hours of deliberation, they returned their verdict. By a majority of 10 to 1, all three men were found guilty of murder. O'Brien and Sherwood were also convicted of robbery.

speaker-1 (44:25.678)
Well, I think the other aspect is, you know, when we went to trial and we got found guilty, and I remember this quite clearly, was July the 20th, 1988. We went on trial from June the 27th. It was a three-week trial. And when the judge said to me, you had every opportunity through yourself, your solicitors, and the barristers to put your case, and you've been found guilty, rightly so in

said. I went white as a ghost. I remember holding on to the side of whatever I was trying to get out of the dock and I said to my father, as long as you know dad I didn't do it, that's all which matters. And I was crying. I looked at the jury and I shook my head and I said, you've got it so wrong. And I will never ever forget that day. It's etched in my memory, you what that judge said to me.

You know, it sends shivers down my spine, to be honest with you, you know? All because I went out and tried to steal a car that night and look at the mess I got myself into, you know? And I hope, I hope if anyone does listen to this podcast, any youngsters out there, don't be a fool. Don't follow the leader. Don't try and fit in and be one of the boys, you know? Because it'll cost you like it costs me, you know? I hope that...

comes across to the youngsters, you know, I'd love to get that across to them, you know, don't do it, just don't do it.

speaker-0 (45:57.654)
Each was sentenced to life in prison.

speaker-1 (46:00.638)
I thought, I believed in British justice, I thought they don't commit to some people, it just don't happen. You know, they've made a mistake here, they'll see that it's all wrong and it's been manufactured and everything but...

I was so wrong. I got it so wrong. And when I did, I couldn't believe it. When the judge gave me a life sentence with another eight years on top for the robbery.

I know when I went into when I went back to Cardiff prison, I got sent down to a place called Long Lardin in Eversham and I served seven years there and for the first two years I turned to the drink and the drugs and it was readily available. I didn't care if I lived or died, I just couldn't fight back or nothing. I just didn't know what to do. And then I had a tap on the shoulder one day from two important people, two miscalculated justice victims.

who were high profile at the time, one of them was in one of the Birmingham six and one of them was Carl Bridgewater boys. And they said to me about fighting back and writing letters and doing things and I didn't have a clue how to do it. I said, well, what do you expect me to do? I'm a mess. I don't know what to do. And there was an incident which occurred the next day when I went to work. I used to work in the laundry.

And I come back for dinner time and I banged up and I took more drugs and elicited alcohol and I crashed out till about quarter past eight in the night. I thought I'd only been asleep for an hour. So I went downstairs and I asked the prison officers could they open the door to take me to work? And they laughed at me. They said, I think you want to go and have a look at the time. So I had a look at the time. It was 10 past eight. I run upstairs on my bed and I cried my eyes out. I realized then I had a serious drug problem and drink problem. What was I going to do about

speaker-1 (47:54.638)
And I thought, right, then I need to see the psychiatrist, I need to see the psychologist. And I went out of my way, I ate a bit of humble pie, I went down to see him, then I cleaned myself up. And that's when the fight began. I started educating myself. I learned to read and write. I couldn't read and write properly when I went into prison. I passed three English exams, three maths exams. I got a city in Guilds. I studied law.

I took the Home Secretary to court when I was in prison. They stopped the journalists from visiting me. I made legal history in the House of Lords. There was no stopping me. I was on the roll. And I was fighting the case and I had a hard time with prison officers. I was placed on false prison charges just to harass me. I I had a hard time in prison. I wasn't the easiest person to get on with, either mind, because I was quite, I wouldn't say arrogant, but I was very confident in what I was doing. I knew I was innocent.

I knew what the things which were going on in prison shouldn't be going on and I wasn't having any of it. And I would stand up for other prisoners. I became the prison lawyer, you for a few years. And yes, we, you know, I went on hunger strike with the prisoners to highlight our cases. But the big breakthrough came in 1996 for us when the Week in Week out program got involved. And all the witnesses went on national television and retracted their evidence, including Darren.

and admitted they had framed us for something we hadn't done because the police put pressure on them. And when I watched that, I cried my eyes out. couldn't believe it. I knew we were going home, but I didn't know when. Then the CCIC was set up, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the new body was, it was a new body at the time in the wake of the Birmingham six cases, was set up after the Royal Commission and sent my case back to the Court of Appeal. Now I remember it was on the 29th of October.

1998, that case was referred back to the Court of Appeal. And I said to my barristers and the solicitors, Gareth Pierce, my lawyer, about going for bail. And they said, I don't think you've got much chance at that, Mike. But then we had the Thames Valley Police report come out, which they did an investigation into our case. And everything we said, what happened in the police station, they proved. So what we did then, I said,

speaker-1 (50:15.726)
we got a chance of going for bail. So I managed to persuade all the lawyers to get together and go for bail. We were released in dramatic circumstances. I think it was the 22nd of December we actually got released. went for bail on the 21st and got released on the 22nd. And we got a, you know, we were released for Christmas in dramatic circumstances. I mean, it was just unbelievable. I never thought it was going to happen, but it did.

speaker-0 (50:45.368)
The following day, the newspapers carried the story. Reports described Michael O'Brien as crying as he left the dock, shouting, quote, we never done it, end quote. It would take years for O'Brien's claims to be vindicated, but the suggestion that there had been a miscarriage of justice began almost instantly. If the prosecution's case had been built on Darren Hall's confession, then its collapse would begin in exactly the same place.

Because what became increasingly clear in the years that followed was this. Darren Hall's story did not simply change once. It changed repeatedly, dramatically, and often impossibly. In the months and years after the trial, Hall gave not one account of the night, but several. Each differed not just in detail, but in substance. At times he placed himself as a lookout. At others he claimed to be involved.

In some versions, he suggested he'd acted alone. By 1991, according to prison records, Hall had already begun to shift his account, suggesting that he had taken a more active role than he'd admitted.

speaker-1 (51:53.07)
against us. I Darren Hall, I mean I knew within five minutes there was something wrong with Darren Hall. I met him down my sister-in-law's on the 19th question when I came down there and I thought I named him Bungalow because I knew he had nothing upstairs or downstairs. That was the best way I could describe him because I was only 19. I'm not a psychologist, I'm not a psychiatrist but even I knew there was something wrong with him. So how couldn't the police understand that?

and the fact that they had the knowledge that he confessed the crimes he hadn't done before, and a magistrate court had a go at that and all, dismissed the charges against him because his solicitor gave evidence for him. He was with his solicitor in the office at the time he reckons he was committing these offenses. Unfortunately, Simon Mumford is no longer with us, but this is what he told the Court of Appeal at a new appeal, and that's how we won it.

He couldn't say anything at the time because he was bombed by client confidentiality. Simon Mumford was in a really difficult position and it wasn't his fault. But the Crown Prosecution Service knew and they should have made that available to our defence and they didn't. But the evidence against us was basically five prosecution witnesses, Darren Hall and an officer who alleges he knew the

outside self-confession there was no forensic evidence linking us to the crime in fact there was evidence to prove there was only one person who committed the crime because a kim rumbelow was the next door neighbor of philip saunders she gave a vivid description the police put out the description in the media that was that even after we were arrested on the first of november they still put out that the person who looks for six foot tall 15 stone build something like that you know and i've got the poster here somewhere of the person still

they were looking for and she was adamant there was only one person so how the one person turned into three I mean her evidence was damning in the sense and what concerned me was once they realized that it didn't fit what the police's narrative was they went and seen Kim Rumbler with a later date and she said I didn't have my glasses on so I couldn't see properly but I do know there was only one person and she stood by that

speaker-1 (54:15.244)
And she still stands by that today.

speaker-0 (54:17.422)
By time the case came under review, expert analysis began to paint a far more complex picture. Psychological assessments suggested that he was a deeply vulnerable individual. He had an IQ of around 90, placing him at the lower end of the average range. And while his reading ability was considered normal, his personality profile indicated significant emotional instability.

More strikingly, he appeared to exhibit traits consistent with individuals prone to false confession behaviour. Experts would later describe how Hall's account bore the hallmarks of multiple types of false confession. Voluntary false confessions driven by a desire for attention or notoriety. Coerced compliant confessions made under pressure to escape an immediate situation. And even coerced internalised confessions

where an individual begins to believe their own accounts. This last category, perhaps the most unsettling. Because it raises the possibility that Hall did not simply lie, but at times may have come to believe the version of events he was describing. Hall's behaviour in prison only deepens these concerns. While serving his sentence, he began to talk about the crime in ways that appeared to elevate his status among other inmates. He described feeling a sense of recognition, even admiration.

for being associated with a serious and high profile offence. In his words, he wanted to be seen as, quote, a somebody. And this mattered. Because environments like prison, and particularly within group therapy settings, confessions can take on a different meaning. They are not simply admissions of guilt. They can become a social currency. There was evidence that Hall came under pressure in these environments to, quote, tell his story.

In doing so, his account became more detailed, more dramatic, and more incriminating, to the point whereby his own admission, what began as something closer to fantasy, started to feel real. At one stage, Hall himself said, quote, I started to believe I'd actually done it, end quote. This is the danger of coerced internalized confessions. The line between truth and suggestion blur.

speaker-0 (56:37.614)
At one point, he even admitted, quote, it's all a load of bullshit. I told you seven different lies, end quote. There were also factual impossibilities in his confessions. Hall claimed, for example, to have apologized to the victim's son, despite the fact that Philip Saunders didn't have one. The account was not just inconsistent, it was provably false in certain aspects. And then there were the circumstances of his original confession.

When Hall was first arrested in October 1987, was 18 years old. During his time in custody, he was subjected to prolonged questioning. He later claimed he had been denied access to a solicitor during key interviews and had not been allowed to contact his parents, that he'd been left exhausted, unable to sleep or eat. His father would later describe seeing him in a visibly distressed state, confused, exhausted,

and complaining that police were, trying to get inside his head, end quote. Crucially, many of Hall's self-incriminating statements were made late at night after extended periods of questioning and in the absence of legal representation. By contrast, when a solicitor was present, he made no admissions relating to the murder. This pattern would later be seen as highly significant. One of the most difficult questions in the case was not why Hall confessed,

but why he did not immediately retract that confession. The answer again appears to lie in a combination of vulnerability, pressure and misunderstanding. Hall later said he did not believe he would be convicted of murder. He thought that by admitting to a lesser role, acting as a lookout, he might receive a relatively light sentence. When his plea to Mansalto was eventually rejected at the trial,

consequence of his early admissions became far more serious than he'd anticipated. There were also other pressures. Retraction his confession would have meant admitting he'd lied and oath, exposing himself to hostility from other prisoners and his other co-accused, and perhaps more significantly revealing to his family that he'd falsely implicated others. Sadly, by the time he began to withdraw his confession, years later, the damage had been done.

speaker-0 (58:53.4)
But by the late 1990s, the reliability of Hall's confession had become impossible to ignore. The Criminal Cases Review Commission began to examine whether there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the confession, the very foundations of the case, may have been unreliable. And at the centre of that was one simple but devastating possibility. What if the case had been built not on truth?

but on a confession that should never have been delivered in the first place. But on a confession that should never have been believed in the first place. In 1995, Karen Voisey began to work on an episode of Week In, Week Out looking into the case. When researchers began this investigation, Hall's claims took on yet another form. The programme's producer, Karen Voisey, visited him in August 1995, where he repeated the version he had given to his solicitor.

This placed him central to the attack. The BBC would go on to commission consultant psychologist, Olive Tansdale, to assess Hall, bringing a level of scrutiny to his account that had been absent during the trial. Because even as Hall repeated these claims in interviews, in therapy, and on camera, his accounts continued to shift. In one telling, he described striking Saunders multiple times with a shovel. In another,

he suggested the attack had been driven by revenge. At times he placed himself alone at the scene, at others he returned the version he gave to court. The effect was cumulative. Each retelling did not clarify what happened. It complicated it. And yet paradoxically, the repetition itself gave the illusion of consistency. The more Hall told his story to police, to inmates, to journalists, the more it risked being perceived as the truth. It was this

documentary that ultimately pushed the case forward, with every participant who gave evidence at court admitting to the journalists that they had lied. The Criminal Cases Review Commission made an affirmative decision. It was time for this case to be referred to the Court of Appeal. The case had unraveled.

speaker-0 (01:01:05.538)
The referral by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal was a clear indication that serious concerns had already emerged about the safety of the conviction. But even then, the process on unpicking what had gone wrong would take time. The CCRC had examined the case and identified what it described as, quote, a real possibility, end quote, that the Court of Appeal would find the convictions unsafe. That conclusion was not based on a single issue.

but on a series of failures that taken together struck at the very foundation of the prosecution's case. Central to those concerns was Darren Hall's confession. By the time the case reached the appeal, there were serious doubts as to whether that confession had been made freely at all. The commission found that it, quote, may well have been falsely made, end quote, highlighting the conditions in which it had been obtained, including,

repeated interviews conducted without legal representation, significant periods of unrecorded questioning, and evidence suggesting Hall had been physically restrained while in custody. And the problems did not end there, because as with the documentary, the reliability of key witness evidence had begun to collapse. One of the prosecution's central witnesses, a teenager at the time, later admitted that his statement had been false.

He described being pressured by police, told he could help himself if he cooperated, and ultimately providing an account that he knew was untrue. No solicitor or appropriate adult had been present when that statement was taken. Another witness whose testimony had supported the prosecution's narrative later retracted her evidence entirely. She described being frightened, confused,

and under significant pressure when she made her original statement, going as far as to say she had been threatened with the removal of her child. Even elements of the case that had once appeared objective began to fall apart under scrutiny. The alleged overheard conversation used to place the men together discussing the crime was found to be deeply unreliable. Records suggested it may not have been documented at the time it supposedly occurred.

speaker-0 (01:03:28.234)
raising the possibility that it had been reconstructed after the fact. Elsewhere, custody records revealed unexplained gaps, hours during which suspects weren't accounted for and during which it was believed further questioning may have taken place off the record. Thames Valley Police investigated these concerns and laid bare these issues. They found widespread breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act

including failures to properly record interviews, delays in custody reviews without explanation, and the denial of access to legal advice. In some instances, detention itself may have been unlawful. There was also indications that standard safeguards, those designed specifically to prevent coercion, had simply not been followed. And when those safeguards fail, the consequences are profound and perhaps demonstrated here.

Because without those safeguards, there is no clear line between voluntary confession and one that has been shaped, influenced or forced. By the time the case did reach the Court of Appeal, the cumulative effect was impossible to ignore. The confession was no longer reliable. The witness evidence was no longer credible and the investigation itself was no longer defensible. What had once been presented as a coherent case, piece by piece had been dismantled.

The Cardiff newsagent 3, as the three men had become known, successfully put in an application for bail, despite their solicitor's warning it was unlikely to be granted. On the 17th of December 1999, the men were given the news that they had long hoped for. Their conviction was crushed. In the end, the three men spent 11 years and 43 days in prison before their convictions.

returned. Following their release both Michael O'Brien and Darren Hall announced that they would be taking legal action against South Wales Police and called for further investigation. Because by that point the case against them had not simply weakened, it had been decimated. And as Michael O'Brien stated in an article at the time quote, the only way that this is going to come out is to have a full open public inquiry.

speaker-0 (01:05:44.854)
If it takes me another 10 years, I am going to do it. I am going to become South Wales Police's worst nightmare." End quote. For Michael O'Brien, the end of the case did not mean the end of the struggle. Even after the convictions had been overturned and the three men were finally released, there remained a fundamental question. What did justice actually look like now? Because freedom on its own was not enough. In the years following his release,

Michael sought something more formal, something that would recognise not just that he had been wrongly convicted, but that the consequences of the conviction had fundamentally altered the course of his life.

speaker-1 (01:06:27.882)
Yes, I mean, I successfully sued the police, but I've also successfully took the police to the House of Lords on a thing called evidence of similar fact. Where a police officer has been made, you know, where his conduct has been called into question in numerous other cases, and it's very similar to what's in your own case, you could use that against them in the civil action against the police, which is what I did.

They fought me all the way. must have cost them over £2 million, the police, to fight that alone. And then they decided they were going to settle out of court once we won the House of Lords case. I mean, why didn't they settle out of court years ago and save themselves a lot of money? Because they were always banging on. The reason why we settled with Sir O'Brien is because of the cost. Well, if that was the truth, why spend out £1 £2 million on going to the House of Lords and trying to stop the evidence of similar fact being submitted?

So their arguments don't really wash with me and people who can see through the case know full well that they settled out of court because they didn't want all the evidence coming out. Hence why I wrote the dossier and put all the evidence in that, which did come out in the end because that was the only way I could get it out. I didn't want to settle out of court with the police. I had no choice. There's a thing called a Part 36 offer, which is based on personal injury. And that's what miscarriages of justice compensation is based on.

And basically it allows bent police officers off the hook because they can commit whatever offenses they can put money into the courts. And if the court says, well, I don't think you're to get any more money than that, then you've got to take it. Otherwise, if you go to trial, one, you won't have no lawyer. You'll have to take the case yourself. And my barrister is none other than Keir Starmer, the prime minister.

speaker-0 (01:08:17.238)
In October 2006, Sherwood and O'Brien were given out of court settlements of $300,000 and $200,000 respectively. These were the largest out of court settlements ever given by an English or Welsh police force at the time. But for Michael and Sherwood, that compensation came with a cost because when the payments were finally made following the collapse of the case, they did not arrive untouched.

From the money awarded to him and to the other individual, a significant sum was deducted by the state to cover what was described as the cost of their, quote, bed and board while in prison. In Michael's case, this amounted to tens of thousands of pounds. In effect, he had been charged for his own wrongful imprisonment. The logic was bureaucratic. The state had fed and housed him, and so it sought reimbursement, but the reality is far more difficult to justify.

because this was not a man who had committed a crime and been lawfully detained. This is someone who had been wrongfully convicted, someone who should never have been in prison in the first place. As Michael would later argue, the principle itself is fundamentally backwards. Guilty people were not asked to pay for their time in prison, but those who had been proven innocent were. The deduction did more than reduce a compensation payment, it reframed it.

what had been presented as redress became in part a transaction, a calculation of bill. And it left behind a question that cuts to the heart of the case. How can the system compensate someone for a miscarriage of justice while simultaneously charging them for the experience? Years later, Michael is still challenging this practice. And I will include a copy of his petition in the show notes. And I urge you to sign it, not just for Michael, but for all the other victims who've also faced this charge.

That campaign is not just about reclaiming money, it's much broader than that. It's about reclaiming dignity, asking for accountability, and the refusal to accept that innocents should ever come with a price tag. It's also worth adding here that while in prison, Michael O'Brien actually affected and changed the law on multiple occasions. This is a man who gets things done. But there's an uncomfortable truth in all of this, and that is that there is a killer still out there.

speaker-0 (01:10:42.658)
who has seemingly avoided his justice. And the truth, as far as Michael's concerned, is that the truth is still out there. Answers are out there, and there is a real possibility that within the next few years, justice could realistically be achieved. However, action is required to get there.

speaker-1 (01:11:03.118)
What I'd like to be done now, my main fight over all the battles I've got, I've got a couple of battles going on, as you know, with the judicial inquiry, the bed and board case, but my main aim is to catch the real killer. That is the one thing which really, really knocks me and why I want the case reopened. They've reopened four out of the five cases. Why is South Coast Police dragging their heels and opening this case? Okay, if they've got a problem with me, I'll accept that.

You know what mean? Yes, I've been a pain. There's no doubt about it. I might have embarrassed them with the evidence I've got, but I'm only telling the truth. I haven't lied about them. I haven't had a go at them for no reason at all. And I think the key issue for me is the victim's family. They're the primary victims. We mustn't forget that. I met them. I was nearly in tears when I met them. It was such an emotional time for all three of us.

Seeing the pain in their eyes haunts me and I have got a photograph of Phoebe and David. I've got a big cardboard cutout from the TV program. I looked at that every day thinking I want to get justice for them because it's about them not about the agent three so much. Yes, I want accountability. Of course I do. But the real issue is getting the real person behind bars and somebody knows who did it. Somebody does know how

A number of witnesses come forward, speaking to friends of mine, but I can't go and take them statements. I can't go and do anything about it.

speaker-0 (01:12:38.19)
In fact, there has been action on this case in the years since, but it has not been of the kind that Michael and others would have hoped for. On the 2nd of December 2010, two people were arrested for issues relating to the trial. At the time, South Wales Police said, quote, officers investigating alleged offences of perjury and preventing the course of justice at the criminal trial in 1988 relating to the murder.

of Mr. Philip Saunders have arrested a man 44 and a woman 42 at an address in Cardiff." Both had been taken to a police station in the city where they were to be questioned. I now know that these individuals were related to Michael. Even then, in 2010, 11 years after their conviction was crushed, the police seemingly still suspect these three men.

The two individuals were eventually released and no charges have seemingly ever been brought against them. But this case is a simple one at its heart and that is that Philip Saunders lost his life in a brutal attack, a brutal attack seemingly over 500 pounds and three men lost a large chunk of their lives because they were wrongfully convicted. Somebody out there has answers and as Michael says,

there is a realistic possibility that the family could get justice. Obviously, if anyone listening to this has any information, please contact South Wales Police and let them and encourage them to take this seriously. A huge thank you to Michael O'Brien for spending some time with me in this episode and please go purchase his book and sign his petition. It is really important and in my opinion, it is scandalous that innocent...

Miscarriage of justice victims are being expected to pay the bills for the pleasure of being held against their will.