By Gabriel Princewill-
After the London Parole Board went through a hearing on paper on Monday, which the prisoner and his family were led to believe would be an oral hearing, the London Parole Board has told this publication it could take up to two weeks for it to decide whether to release a former drug dealer from prison, recalled under highly suspicious circumstances.
The blatantly corrupt recall to prison of a former drug dealer, Marcus Brown, on the face of it appears to be a vendetta by the probation services has still not been redressed .
The ostensible vendetta in question would under normal circumstances go unchallenged by the prevailing official authorities whose role it ought to be to address professional transgressions of this type.
However, given the criminal history of Mr. Brown, all complaints expressed by his family to their Mp, probation services, and even the police themselves, were always going to fall on deaf ears.
This unfortunate tendency is anchored on the premise that former criminals are typically forever doomed with the label of societal misfit, eternal offenders marginalised by the powers that be, and often relegated to the backseat of society due to that preconceived idea.
Attitudes like this invariably make mockery of the idea of rehabilitation, designed to integrate offenders into society to avoid re-offending and move away from a life of crime.
The ex-convict, appears to have been an easy target for unscrupulous officials of the probation services, who will continue to be held to account by this publication for their deplorable conduct in this particular case.
High standards of integrity are expected of government officials, though the British public has unfortunately become accustomed to the reality that occupying a high position does not necessarily equate being an honourable individual or behaving honourably at all times.
Decision makers in professional orbit should be efficient, insightful, and reliable.
After nearly four months in prison for a recall which is hardly defensible, I asked why the Parole Board is taking so long to arrive at a decision in relation to his release from prison. Marcus Brown was recalled to prison in March 2022, and the parole Board asked the probation service to hand in all its paper work on Mr. Brown by the 1st of July for a hearing on July 25.
A spokesperson for the London Parole Board told The Eye Of Media.Com yesterday (Monday)that a hearing originally slated for the 30th of June but extended to the 25th of July, could take up to 14 days for a decision on the outcome.
Asked to justify why a person already in prison for 4 months on a recall alleged to be corrupt should have to endure a further 2 weeks wait for a decision, the spokesperson said: ”That is the procedure in the parole board. We deal with over 20,000 cases, and they have to go in a queue. All the paper work has to be read by a single decision maker, and then discussed with other personnel before a final decision is made.
There is a lot of paper work to go through, and it is important for every detail to be examined properly. If the final decision is unfavourable, the prisoner has another 28 days to appeal,’ she said.
The upshot of that statement appears to be that it is okay for an innocent person to spend months in prison, whilst the decision makers drag their feet on whether he should remain there or be released. The parole board representative was in short talking about due diligence, an important feature of every professional assessment.
Notwithstanding, there is the important issue of relative speed , and sometimes distinguishing some cases from others quickly.
In response to whether the probation services receive vases alleging corruption like in this case has been agreed by Mr. Brown’s lawyers, high discretion ought to take precedence over bureaucratic conventions. It is unacceptable that a man of over 60 can be held in prison for even another three days, if he is in fact innocent.
Recall
Marcus Brown, 62, was imprisoned in March 2022, after being recalled to prison, following a conspiracy to supply class A drugs in October 2020. He was originally sentenced to 16 1/2 years for importing kilos of cocaine to the Uk, and was out on parole after serving half of his sentence.
Against his history, Mr. Brown is far from an angel, but this doesn’t give probation officials the right to overstep boundaries and bend the law to suit themselves.
Mr. Brown had been out of prison for five years, running a business, when in October 2020, a vehicle registered to his business was found by police to contain a sizeable quantity of class A drugs in it. The car was being driven by his son in law- the father of his daughter’s child -but he himself was not in the vehicle. Somehow he was charged for conspiracy without any hone evidence linking him to the drug activity, according to the family’s account.
Interestingly, his daughter, Tiffany – who can be a pain in her push to see her family freed – claims not to have known that her then partner was selling drugs. on the day in question. She admits it was her idea for the driver to have the vehicle that day, but insists she was in the dark about his true intentions. Her father also claims to have been oblivious of his son in law’s endeavours to deal the same class of drugs over which he was once lord among his drug dealing peers.
This article does not seek to vouch for the integrity of Tiffany’s character, as we do not know her, or that of her father, Marcus Brown. It is about accountability with respect to the actions taken.
That cops did not believe Mr. Brown is unsurprising. His history of dealing kilos in cocaine made it theoretically probable he was conspiring to supply the drugs, but there was no evidence to support that, rather there is evidence to support the fact he runs a business. The driver took full responsibility for the drugs and maintains to this publication the drugs were his. He is due in court in October.
Most pertinent to the present situation in which Mr Brown finds himself is the fact he was not recalled at this juncture, but was allowed to continue to be on parole, whilst periodically attending his probation meetings on a monthly basis, with no further incidences occurring.
What happened next would become the subject an investigation by this publication, after we were contacted by a family friend of Mr. Brown to investigate an alleged corruption in the imprisonment of his son, Aaron Brown, 33-on an IPP sentence .
The probation service with suspicious new personnel displacing Mr Brown’s old probation worker, were avowed transgressors in their decision to abuse their power by recalling him to prison a year later. Why did they do this? Because Mr. Brown was about lodge a legal suit against Greater Manchester Police over his suspicion that his son was illegally being kept in prison for ulterior motive and had also complained to the Ombudsman of the probation services over the same case.
Twist
An interesting twist was lurking in the background. Michael Wood – a prison officer- was the then boyfriend of Jessica Brown (who is mother to Aaron’s child) has a sister in the Greater Manchester police force by the name of Joanna Wood. And what was the name of the authorising probation officer who recalled Mr. Brown? Paul Wood.
Mr. Wood declined to confirm to The Eye Of Media.Com that he had any relations with either Michael Wood or Joana Wood when we questioned him early this year, opting to refer us to the Ministry Of Justice Press Office for a comment which was never forthcoming.
Mother of Aaron’s child: Jessica Wood Image:Facebook
Tiffany, whose volatile temperament over her brother and father’s incarceration, can be both touching annoying, arranged for the car to be insured in the driver’s name so he could drive it legally.
Desperate Call For Help
Mr. Brown and his team arranged to meet members of The Eye Of Media.Com in Cambridgeshire where he resides, with his wife , Sue, and daughter, Tiffany, as they desperately pleaded for help in investigating what they insisted was foul play in his son’s imprisonment. They alleged his son had been the victim of corruption by Greater Manchester Police, whom they said had undertaken a series of dishonourable steps to have their son convicted , without any genuine evidence.
Aaron was jailed in 2005, and given 99 years on the controversial IPP scheme for wounding with intent, released in 2013, then recalled in 2014 for 9 months for breaching his bail conditions by being in a pub he was prohibited from attending.
After he was let out of prison, he was again recalled in 2016 after he attempted to run from police when they raided a property for cannabis where he was staying with a friend. When he was due for parole in 2018, it was denied citing allegations that he posed a danger to the life of the mother of his child, Jessica Myles.
His friend in that situation, admitted ownership of the cannabis discovered, but Aaron was nevertheless also charged for the drugs, despite it not being on him. The charges were eventually dropped, and he was charged for obstructing police in his bid to escape. The track record of drugs have clearly sounded alarm bells in the past of this family.
When Aaron was due for Parole in 2016, his Parole was denied after the mother of his child, Jessica Myles, her boyfriend, Paul Wood, and his two parents, were handed an osman warning-indicating a threat to life. According to the family, no evidence was provided to support the basis of the threat, they were simply told cops had ‘intelligence’ to support the claim.
The family later told this publication that documents from social services given to Aaron in prison revealed cancelled writing through which they could read claims from Jessica Myles(the mother of Aaron’s child) that he had a gun and posed a threat to her safety. Those claims were allegedly used against him without any supporting evidence to keep him in prison. The family also complained bitterly about the probation services, accusing them of a wall of silence, and refusing to address any concerns they had.
Aaron Brown: Image:supplied
When the story first came to my attention for publication, I insisted they first make a complaint to the police professional standards and the Ombudsman for probation services. The family also expressed plans to lodge a suit against Greater Manchester Police.
A letter sent to the professional standards of Greater Manchester Police on December 12, and a letter was sent to the Ombudsman to probation services on December 17. Within weeks on January 21,police knocked on his door in the early hours of the morning, announcing that he was being recalled to prison. He was at work that morning.
The recall letter was dated December 15th, even though he attended his probation meeting on December 21 and works at the Felix Dock where his finger prints are taken daily, as part of the standard procedure there. The family believe the recall date was backdated to the 15th in an attempt to mask the appearance that the recall was a vendetta by dating it before the the letter to the Ombudsman, even though the case was already suspicious, coming a few days after a complain to the police professional standards and a pre-action protocol letter.
Brown’s family complained to their then Mp Stephen Barclays, who found himself caught up in the entire sherede escalated the complaint to the wrong person, Kit Malthouse- the then minister of police. Malthouse responded ineptly, simply echoing the probation services, and woefully failing to address the suspicious grounds of the recall.
The next time Barclays contacted the Brown’s was to inform them he had referred the case to the police commissioner, who never contacted the Browns. The entire complaints handling process was shambolic, and shameful of highly placed government officials who flagrantly abdicated their responsibility.
The parole board was the final stop for this dismayed family, but even they seem to be dragging their feet on this matter.
Dodgy And Illegitimate
Competent parole board officials in possession of all the facts ought to be able to see clearly why the recall in this case is dodgy and illegitimate, without needing to ponder unduly long on a case with ample information from which to draw a responsible and professional conclusion.
This case raises serious questions about the abuse of power of the probation services who can act with impunity. The extent to which criminals on parole can potentially be recalled for biased reasons in total breach of the rule of law is cause for concern. The effect can be to inflict an immeasurable level of mental health on affected parties.
A system begins to lose its integrity and confidence in the people when fundamental principles of law are displaced by abuse of power and inefficiency. More so when its shortcomings are glaringly obvious to whomever is observing it.
The Ministry Of Justice have been questioned a number of times by this publication about this suspicious recall. It is the only question in about ten years of dealing with them to which they have had no single response.
The law must be applied fairly and consistently in all respects. Any departure from its fair and consistent application becomes corrupt.