In a statement released by Cleveland Police, Kyle's family said: "All we have ever wanted was to know the truth about what happened to Kyle.  
Cleveland Police Witheld Evidence.
 

 
 
 

Cleveland Police Left out Vital Evidence in this murder case, but this is not unusual for Cleveland Police who have been getting away with Corruption for many years. Even the local News is afraid to point the blame at them.

Toddler death babysitter released

Suzanne Holdsworth (Issued by Cleveland Police)
Suzanne Holdsworth claimed Kyle had suffered a fit

A babysitter found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son has been released from prison after her conviction was ruled unsafe.

Lawyers for Suzanne Holdsworth, 37, had argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of Kyle Fisher in 2005.

The Court of Appeal was told Kyle's brain had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.

Ms Holdsworth, of Hartlepool, Teesside, was granted bail ahead of a retrial.

The former supermarket worker was accused of having repeatedly banged the boy's head against a banister in her home after having "snapped" while looking after the child whose 19-year-old mother was on a night out.

Watching television

She consistently denied injuring Kyle and claimed he had suffered a fit as they sat watching television.

In a statement her family said they were "ecstatic at today's news" and described it as "wonderful".

Kyle Fisher
Kyle Fisher's brain predisposed him to epilepsy, the court heard

They said they were "looking forward to the retrial" which they hoped would "prove this case to be a miscarriage of justice".

Outside court Ms Holdsworth's solicitor, Campbell Malone, said bail had been granted with conditions.

Lord Justice Toulson, quashing the conviction, said that having evaluated the oral evidence "we do not consider that we can safely dismiss the medical scenario advanced on the applicant's behalf".

A jury at Teesside Crown Court found Ms Holdsworth guilty of murder in 2005. She was jailed for life and told she would have to serve at least 10 years before applying for parole.

'Unusual brain'

At Thursday's hearing, Lord Toulson said it was the court's view that if the fresh medical evidence had been given at her trial it might reasonably have affected the jury's decision to convict.

He said the conviction "must be judged unsafe".

Suzanne Holdsworth's partner said she was innocent

Henry Blaxland QC, for Ms Holdsworth, said doctors at her trial had "failed to diagnose" that Kyle had a "highly unusual brain" which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy.

Commenting on the court's decision, her solicitor said: "I think she was crying, but she said she was very happy. She was just overwhelmed with emotion."

Ms Holdsworth's boyfriend, Lee Spencer, said he had never doubted her innocence and was delighted at the verdict.

"It's something we've said all along, that it's been a grave miscarriage of justice, pre-trial, the original trial, she was innocent, and she's still the same innocent woman today, as proven in court.

"But let's not forget what this is about - we can be happy and chuffed to bits that the court has listened to new evidence - but a child is still dead," he said.

Ms Holdsworth was freed from Low Newton prison in County Durham , where she has served three years of a life sentence.

In a statement released by Cleveland Police, Kyle's family said: "All we have ever wanted was to know the truth about what happened to Kyle.

"Since his death our lives have focused around the case - not one of us has been able to move on.

"Today's decision has brought all the heartache back, however we will fully cooperate in the preparation for the retrial."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
     

Liberty Policy Director Gareth Crossman said:

"The Extradition Act 2003 undermines longstanding safeguards against unfair removal and unfortunately appears to be more about politics than law.”

Liberty Press Office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS

In October 2006, Liberty, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Bar Human Rights Council, Justice, Gareth Peirce and others unsuccessfully sought Parliamentary support for a law to provide greater protection for British citizens who may be extradited to face criminal charges abroad.

Liberty intervened in the case Government of the United States of America v Bermingham, Mulgrew and Darby, to argue that removal to the United States would engage Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which protects the right to respect for a private and family life. Liberty argued that the interference with family life caused by removal to the United States must be disproportionate if shown to be unnecessary through the ability to dispose of the case to the United Kingdom. The three were sent to the USA in July 2006.

Home Office statistics show that the US government has made 47 extradition requests since January 2004. The UK government has made 12 such requests of the US.

Liberty Briefing- The Extradition Treaty 2003:

The UK's extradition laws have been radically overhauled in recent years. The Extradition Act 2003 created a system of fast track processing of extradition applications. This means that British citizens can be removed from the UK to many jurisdictions without the need for a court to hear that there is any evidence against them. The United States is one country where the fast track process has been introduced. However, Liberty does not think that debate over extradition should focus on the US and the non reciprocal nature of our extradition procedures as this might allow principled debate to be construed as anti Americanism. In any case, summary extradition should not take place from any state.

Liberty does not believe anyone should be removed from the United Kingdom without a British Court being satisfied that there is evidence. When Liberty argued this during the passage of the Extradition Bill the government responded that the removal of safeguard would be balanced by the introduction of a protection that no-one would be removed from the UK if doing so would breach their human rights.

When extradition proceeding were taken against the Natwest 3, Liberty intervened in the High Court. We argued that this human rights protection meant that if a case could be tried in the United Kingdom, it would breach rights to a family life if someone were taken overseas. No-one should face the prospects of being held in an overseas prison awaiting trial, away from family and friends, if they can face trial in the UK. The growing international and multi-jurisdictional nature of the criminal law means that cases of this type will become increasing common.

Liberty also argued that the positive duties imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998 should require the prosecuting authorities to take steps to see if prosecution were possible. We do not believe that nearly enough has been done to bring proceedings against the Natwest 3. Writing in the Financial Times on 10 July 2006 Baroness Scotland said 'It is for the prosecuting authorities to consider whether a case should be heard in the UK.' Liberty would argue that when a failure to do so will result in a person instead facing trial on the other side of the world, the state should do more than 'consider' but take positive steps to see if prosecution is possible. Liberty would also remind Parliamentarians that when considering criminal charges, the UK prosecuting authorities need to consider not only the evidence, but also the public interest. There appears to be no public interest test in relation to extradition.

Unfortunately the case is not proceeding to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords which means that there will not be an opportunity to put forward these arguments.

Parliament urgently needs to review the grounds for permitting extradition and the protections against unfair extradition. In particular there is a need to address

The lack of evidence needed to permit extradition
The lack of an obligation in domestic law requiring a case to be heard in the UK if possible.

 

   
 
 

The US has been using the UK 2003 extradition act to extradite people who have broken no UK laws knowing that they need no evidence of any kind. They also know that once you arrive in the US that even if you have done nothing Illegal that the threat of life behind bars and being remanded in custody for a long period of time while waiting trial is enough to get the extradited person to take a plea. In order to be extradited you must have committed a crime in the UK which has the corresponding crime in the US. In our case we have no criminal records and have been cleared of all wrong doing by the English and Scottish police.

We have spent 214 days on remand away from our four young girls and only a thirty day hunger strike managed to get us bail. Imagine yourself and your partner without notice put in prison without charge without questioning for 7 months not even given the same rights as a common criminal. If there is anybody from the media out there that would like to expand on this horrific story please contact me through this email address: brian@howes.uk.net and I will respond.