Kevan’s story
Kevan is innocent. This is his story.
Kevan Thakrar, known as Kev to the people close to him, was twenty when his life was taken over by a wrongful conviction. He is innocent, and he has spent years fighting from inside prison to prove it.
Kevan
Before all this
Family and friends know Kevan as Kev. He was born on 9 March 1987, the third of four brothers. He did well at school, passed his GCSEs, went on to study A levels and kept himself fit through swimming and the gym. People close to him remember a young man who avoided drugs, took pride in discipline and still had his adult life ahead of him.
By 2007 Kevan was only twenty. He had struggled with depression during the previous year, but he had no reason to imagine that innocence would not protect him. Like many people, he believed that if he had not committed a crime, the courts would not convict him of it.
That belief was destroyed. Kevan was wrongly pulled into a case that would take his liberty, separate him from the people who loved him and force him to learn the law from inside some of the harshest prison conditions in the country.
The case
Why this is a wrongful conviction fight
On 28 August 2007 Keith Cowell, Matthew Cowell and Tony Delieu were killed at the Cowell home in Bishop’s Stortford. The case that followed became one of the defining injustices of Kevan’s life. Kevan is innocent, but he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2008. He has fought to overturn the conviction ever since.
Kevan does not accept presence or guilt. The conviction is challenged because identification did not reliably place him in the events, second-hand claims were treated as usable evidence, joint enterprise allowed a prosecution theory of shared responsibility to do work the evidence could not safely do, and the wider atmosphere helped harden assumptions against him. Together, those failures made a weak case look complete.
Evidence questionIdentification evidence
Kevan has always said he was not at the crime scene, and the prosecution evidence did not reliably place him there. Identification evidence can carry enormous force, especially in a serious murder case. Weak identification was treated as stronger than it was, and that gave the case a foundation it did not deserve.
The reliability of the identification process, the quality of the evidence used to link Kevan to events, and the failure to give its weaknesses proper weight.
If a person is wrongly identified, every later inference can become contaminated. The jury may then see the rest of the case through a false starting point.
Identification is not a technical side issue. It goes directly to the case that the wrong man was accused and convicted.
Read more on identificationEvidence questionHearsay and second-hand claims
Kevan’s case has raised deep concern about second-hand evidence, including statements connected to Cyprus. Older case material says witnesses later disputed original statements and that Cyprus police prevented participation in a video link during the trial.
The use of statements and claims that Kevan could not confront in the ordinary way, including evidence said to have come through overseas policing channels.
Cross-examination is one of the basic protections against unreliable accusation. When the original source is absent or disputed, the risk of injustice rises sharply.
The hearsay issue shows how Kevan could be convicted on claims that were too distant, too disputed and too hard to test fairly.
Read more on hearsayLegal questionJoint enterprise
Kevan was convicted through joint enterprise, but he does not accept presence or guilt. The law allowed the prosecution to argue shared responsibility through alleged intention, association and inference while the direct proof remained weak.
Joint enterprise was used to bridge gaps in the prosecution case and make Kevan legally responsible despite his innocence.
When the evidence is already disputed, a broad theory of shared responsibility can make weak facts look complete. That is why Kevan’s joint enterprise conviction needs close scrutiny.
This issue shows how the law attached guilt to Kevan through the prosecution theory, even though the prosecution’s factual case stayed weak.
Read more on joint enterpriseFairness questionMedia pressure and public prejudice
Older case material raises concern about misinformation, hostile coverage and the atmosphere around the trial. It also alleges that police leaked misinformation to newspapers. That needs careful treatment, but the underlying issue is important.
The public narrative around Kevan and the way early coverage helped create a presumption against him before the evidence was properly understood.
A fair trial depends on more than courtroom procedure. Public hostility can shape assumptions, pressure decision-makers and make later correction harder.
The campaign has to separate press claims, prison allegations and what the evidence can actually prove.
Press backgroundKevan was not there
Kevan is innocent. He was nowhere near the crime scene. The conviction relied on deeply troubling evidence and legal assumptions: weak identification, second-hand claims and a joint enterprise theory that turned disputed material into a life sentence. The evidence, legal issues and timeline show why the fight is still urgent.
Appeal fight
A fight made harder by distance, prison status and the weight of the system
Kevan and his brother Miran were both part of appeal proceedings after conviction. Older case material records that they were expected to take part by video link rather than appear physically in court, with concerns about whether the hearing would allow them to participate properly.
Kevan’s supporters have also pointed to statements connected to Cyprus, hearsay evidence, joint enterprise and the original trial at St Albans Crown Court. The details are legal, but the human reality is plain: Kevan has had to fight from prison against a conviction that cannot stand.
The burden of proving innocence from prison
After conviction, a person fighting for justice is not working from a level field. Kevan has had to rely on letters, legal papers, supporters, limited communication and the willingness of people outside to keep paying attention. Every lost document, every disrupted call, every move between prisons and every period of isolation can make that fight harder.
- Appeal work depends on access to records, lawyers, witnesses and time.
- Legal issues such as hearsay and joint enterprise can sound technical until they are put in plain English.
- Prison conditions affect a person’s ability to organise, communicate and stay well enough to keep fighting.
- Public support can help keep information moving when prison walls are designed to cut people off.
Prison life
Years of punishment while fighting to prove his innocence
Kevan’s story did not end with sentence. Reports from the time and Kevan’s archive describe serious racism and violence against him at HMP Frankland before the 2010 incident that later brought him back to court. Court records and reporting show that Kevan’s case at trial was lawful self-defence. In 2011, a jury acquitted him.
That acquittal matters. Kevan was cleared over the Frankland incident, yet the CSC process had already begun before the trial was resolved and continued afterwards. The court result cleared him. Prison control continued, and that contradiction is central to the years that followed.
Since then, he has spent years in CSC and segregation conditions, including periods described by supporters as long-term solitary confinement. In 2021, supporters wrote that he had been held in the Close Supervision Centre system for more than eleven years before being moved to segregation at HMP Full Sutton.
The wider prison story includes serious allegations of racist violence, assaults, starvation, false accusations, property loss, obstructed complaints and mental health harm. Kevan has described PTSD and the effect of years in extreme conditions. His supporters have said that isolation and prison treatment punished him and made it harder for him to resist, communicate and be seen by the outside world.
A wrongful conviction fight depends on health, papers, lawyers, complaints and outside support. When those are restricted, prison conditions affect Kevan’s ability to prove his innocence.
How prison conditions obstruct justice
Kevan’s 2015 letter described a failed attempt to have him sectioned under the Mental Health Act, a psychological report saying he no longer needed CSC conditions, and his fear that he was being pushed toward more extreme isolation. The 2021 Full Sutton update described a dirty punishment cell, no electricity, no toilet seat or lid, false allegations, lack of services since the pandemic began, and a move one day before a video meeting with an independent psychologist.
These conditions can obstruct justice. A person fighting a murder conviction needs stability, papers, communication, health care and legal contact. When those are disrupted, the prison system becomes part of the case.
Letters from inside
The clearest voice in this fight is Kevan’s own.
Kevan’s letters show gratitude, urgency and the emotional weight of trying to survive while still fighting for freedom. In one of his most direct appeals, he thanked people who demonstrated outside Prison Service headquarters, described the pressure he was under, and wrote that he needed support more than ever.
In 2024, Kevan again thanked people for their solidarity. His letters are Kevan speaking from the conditions he is living through, asking people not to look away.
Support Kevan
Outside support keeps the fight moving.
Kevan needs people outside prison who will keep his name, evidence and letters in view. Sharing the case, sending information and writing to him can all help bring truth back into the open. He has lost years of his life, but the fight is not over.
Plain-English terms
Joint enterprise, hearsay, CSC, segregation and appeal language are explained in the glossary.