Skip to content
Justice for KevanJustice for Kevan

Glossary

Plain English for the law and prison terms in Kevan’s case.

Some words carry a lot of weight in Kevan’s case: joint enterprise, hearsay, identification evidence, unsafe conviction, CSC, segregation and human rights. Each term connects to proof, fairness, prison control, legal access or Kevan’s contact with the outside world.

Main case termsPrison termsHelp Kevan

Main case

Terms that explain why the conviction is challenged.

The words below show how weak identification, second-hand claims, joint enterprise and appeal law shaped the prosecution case.

Main case

Joint enterprise

Joint enterprise is the everyday name often used for secondary liability: the law that can make someone responsible for a crime carried out by another person.

Meaning in plain English

A person can be treated as an accessory where they intentionally assisted or encouraged another person to commit an offence. After Jogee, foresight of what someone else might do can be evidence of intent, but intent still has to be proved.

Kevan’s case

The danger in Kevan’s case is that association, inference and a prosecution story were allowed to replace direct proof. His case is that the evidence did not prove he intentionally assisted or encouraged murder, and that a group-case theory wrongly pulled him into liability.

Key details in the record

  • What act is said to be assistance or encouragement.
  • Whether intent was proved, not assumed from presence or association.
  • How identification and second-hand claims were used together.

Further reading

Legal pageEvidence pageCPS secondary liability guidanceR v Jogee, UK Supreme Court
Main case

Hearsay

Hearsay is evidence based on a statement made outside court, used to prove that what was said is true.

Meaning in plain English

It can include gossip, reports of what someone else supposedly said, a confession repeated through another person, business records, documents, absent-witness material, or repeated layers of second-hand statement. Some hearsay can be admitted in criminal trials, but the key questions are reliability, fairness and whether the defence can properly challenge it.

Kevan’s case

In Kevan’s case, second-hand claims attributed to others helped strengthen the prosecution case while the defence could not test the original speaker in the ordinary way. Untested words can look more solid than they are when repeated inside a serious prosecution.

Key details in the record

  • Who originally said the words.
  • Whether that person gave evidence in court.
  • Whether the defence could cross-examine the real source of the claim.
  • Whether the jury may have treated second-hand material as stronger than it was.

Further reading

Legal pageHearsay explainerCriminal Justice Act 2003, section 114Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 121
Main case

Identification evidence

Identification evidence is material used to say a witness saw, recognised or picked out a person connected to an offence.

Meaning in plain English

Identification can come from an eyewitness, recognition, a video procedure, an identification parade, a confrontation or other police procedure. Honest witnesses can still be mistaken, especially where the sighting was brief, stressful, poorly lit, cross-racial, delayed or influenced by later information.

Kevan’s case

Kevan’s fight starts with the failure to place him reliably at the scene. Weak, inconsistent or unsupported identification cannot fairly become strong evidence by being combined with hearsay, inference or prejudice.

Key details in the record

  • The first description given before any suspect was known.
  • How long the witness saw the person and in what conditions.
  • Whether formal identification procedures were used properly.
  • Whether later recognition was influenced by publicity, contact or assumption.

Further reading

Evidence pageTimelinePACE Code D, GOV.UK
Main case

Unsafe conviction

An unsafe conviction is the legal test used by the Court of Appeal when deciding whether a conviction can stand.

Meaning in plain English

The Court of Appeal must allow a conviction appeal if it thinks the conviction is unsafe. If it allows the appeal, it quashes the conviction, although a retrial can be ordered in some cases.

Kevan’s case

Kevan is innocent. The legal task is to show why the conviction cannot safely stand: weak identification, second-hand claims, joint enterprise reasoning, appeal barriers and the surrounding record all matter because they affect whether the conviction is reliable.

Key details in the record

  • Evidence that was weak, wrongly used or not properly tested.
  • Legal directions or legal reasoning that may have distorted the verdict.
  • New material or arguments that make the case look different.

Further reading

Legal pageCriminal Appeal Act 1968, section 2Court of Appeal Criminal Division
Main case

Appeal

An appeal is a legal challenge to a conviction or sentence after trial.

Meaning in plain English

In a conviction case, the appeal court looks at whether the conviction is unsafe. Appeal work can involve legal arguments, trial transcripts, fresh evidence, disclosure issues, expert evidence, procedural unfairness and applications for permission where ordinary time limits have passed.

Kevan’s case

Appeal work in Kevan’s case has been done from inside prison, where papers, visits, calls, correspondence, health and prison control can all affect the ability to challenge a conviction. The appeal record and the prison record are connected because prison control can shape access to justice.

Key details in the record

  • What the Court of Appeal has already considered.
  • What new evidence or legal argument is now available.
  • How prison conditions may have obstructed legal work.

Further reading

Legal pageCurrent fightCourt of Appeal Criminal Division
Main case

CCRC

The CCRC is the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the body that investigates possible miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Meaning in plain English

The CCRC can review a conviction after ordinary appeals have usually been tried. It is independent and free to apply to. It is not a solicitor for the applicant, but it has powers to obtain material and can refer a case back to the appeal court where the legal test is met.

Kevan’s case

In Kevan’s case, the CCRC matters because a wrongful conviction challenge often depends on finding something new: evidence, a witness, disclosure, legal change or a stronger way of showing why the original conviction cannot stand.

Key details in the record

  • New evidence or a new legal argument.
  • Material not properly considered before.
  • Documents or witnesses that could change how the appeal court sees the case.

Further reading

Legal pageCCRC official websiteCriminal Appeal Act 1995, section 14
Main case

Article 6

Article 6 protects the right to a fair trial and fair legal process.

Meaning in plain English

Article 6 covers criminal proceedings and access to court. In plain terms, it is about whether a person had a fair chance to challenge the case against them, use legal advice, test evidence and have the court process work fairly.

Kevan’s case

Article 6 connects Kevan’s original conviction, appeal access, legal papers, video-link concerns, disclosure, hearsay and the practical barriers of challenging a conviction from custody.

Key details in the record

  • Whether evidence could be properly challenged.
  • Whether legal advice, court access and documents were available.
  • Whether process problems affected the fairness of the case.
  • Whether later barriers made correction harder.

Further reading

Legal pageEvidence pageHuman Rights Act 1998, Schedule 1

Prison record

Terms that explain the prison record.

Prison conditions, correspondence, legal access and isolation have shaped Kevan’s search for justice from inside.

Prison record

Close Supervision Centre

A Close Supervision Centre, or CSC, is a high-control prison placement used for prisoners the prison service says need to be separated from ordinary association.

Meaning in plain English

Prison Rule 46 allows CSC placement where it appears desirable for good order, discipline or safety. The rule includes renewal and medical-consideration language, but the lived reality can still be extreme: isolation, restricted contact, intense control, limited movement and severe pressure.

Kevan’s case

Kevan’s CSC record is central because he has had to keep proving his innocence while surviving a regime that can make legal work, family contact, health and visibility harder. It records what he has endured while challenging the conviction.

Key details in the record

  • CSC placement decisions and renewals.
  • Medical and mental-health considerations.
  • Time out of cell, contact, visits, calls and legal access.
  • Records of complaints, litigation and inspection material.

Further reading

Legal pageCurrent fightPrison Rules 1999, rule 46
Prison record

Segregation

Segregation means removal from ordinary association with other prisoners.

Meaning in plain English

Prison Rule 45 covers removal from association. It can begin for a short period, but longer removal needs written authority and renewed authorisation. Medical recommendations are relevant. Segregation is legally distinct from CSC placement and disciplinary cellular confinement, even when the lived experience overlaps.

Kevan’s case

In Kevan’s record, segregation has affected mental and physical health, access to papers, correspondence, visits, legal calls, public visibility and the ability to keep proving innocence from inside prison.

Key details in the record

  • Dates, duration and authorisations.
  • Medical recommendations and mental-health evidence.
  • Contact with lawyers, family and supporters.
  • How segregation affected evidence work and court access.

Further reading

Legal pageTimelinePrison Rules 1999, rule 45
Prison record

Prison and Probation Ombudsman

The Prison and Probation Ombudsman, or PPO, investigates certain prison complaints and deaths in custody.

Meaning in plain English

The PPO is independent of the prison service and receives complaints from people in custody or under supervision. It can investigate after internal complaint steps have been used, but it is still an oversight system with limits, time frames and evidential boundaries.

Kevan’s case

Kevan has written about prison complaint systems because complaint handling can decide whether abuse, lost property, blocked legal access or unsafe conditions are exposed or buried. A failed complaint process can become part of the injustice itself.

Key details in the record

  • The original complaint and prison response.
  • Whether the PPO accepted, rejected or limited the investigation.
  • What documents were available to the investigator.
  • Whether the outcome answered the real harm raised.

Further reading

PPO commentaryPPO official websiteContact the campaign
Prison record

Prison law

Prison law is the mix of statutes, Prison Rules, HMPPS policies, case law and human-rights duties that govern life inside prison.

Meaning in plain English

It covers communication, visits, legal correspondence, legal papers, searches, complaints, healthcare, segregation, CSC placement, discipline, access to court and the duties of public authorities. A policy breach can reveal the safeguard that applied, the evidence available to challenge it and whether legal action is possible.

Kevan’s case

Prison law matters in Kevan’s case because prison control can affect his ability to challenge a wrongful conviction: access to lawyers, court deadlines, legal papers, correspondence, medical care and complaint evidence are all practical justice issues.

Key details in the record

  • The rule or policy that applied at the time.
  • The specific act or failure by the prison.
  • The document that proves what happened.
  • The effect on Kevan’s legal work, health or contact.

Further reading

Legal pagePrison Rules 1999, rule 38Prison Rules 1999, rule 39
Prison record

Human rights

Human rights are legal protections that continue to matter in prison, even though lawful imprisonment allows some restrictions.

Meaning in plain English

The Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with Convention rights unless primary legislation leaves them no alternative. In Kevan’s context, the most relevant public explanations are usually Article 3, Article 6 and Article 8: humane treatment, fair trial or access to court, and private life, family life and correspondence.

Kevan’s case

Kevan’s prison challenges are human-rights issues because isolation, alleged abuse, legal-access barriers and correspondence restrictions can affect dignity, health, family life and the ability to keep fighting a wrongful conviction.

Key details in the record

  • Which right is engaged.
  • What the prison did or failed to do.
  • Whether the interference was lawful, necessary and proportionate where balancing applies.
  • What evidence shows the impact on Kevan.

Further reading

Legal pageHuman Rights Act 1998, section 6Human Rights Act 1998, Schedule 1
Prison record

Article 3

Article 3 protects people from torture and from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Meaning in plain English

Article 3 is one of the strongest human-rights protections. It does not disappear in prison. Courts look at whether treatment crosses a high threshold, using evidence about conditions, duration, physical or mental harm, medical needs and official knowledge.

Kevan’s case

Article 3 matters in Kevan’s prison record because long isolation, alleged violence, health impact and high-control conditions are part of the evidence trail. The clearest public case comes from matching those harms to dates, locations, medical evidence, complaint records and court material.

Key details in the record

  • The exact treatment or condition being challenged.
  • How long it lasted and how intense it was.
  • Medical, psychological or witness evidence of impact.
  • What officials knew and what they did in response.

Further reading

Legal pageHuman Rights Act 1998, Schedule 1Current fight
Prison record

Article 8

Article 8 protects private life, family life, home and correspondence.

Meaning in plain English

In prison, Article 8 often arises around letters, phone calls, visits, family contact, private life, records and communication. Restrictions can be lawful, but they need a proper legal basis and a reason that can be justified.

Kevan’s case

Article 8 matters because correspondence, family contact, legal communication and long-term isolation all affect Kevan’s access to justice and his connection to the outside world.

Key details in the record

  • What contact, correspondence or private-life interest was restricted.
  • The rule or policy relied on.
  • Whether the restriction was necessary and proportionate.
  • The effect on Kevan, his family, supporters or legal work.

Further reading

Legal pageCurrent fightHuman Rights Act 1998, Schedule 1

Need the full story?

Start with Kevan’s life, then read the evidence, timeline and current prison challenges together.

Read Kevan’s story