The facts of this case are:-

• Mark was bringing his brother Andreas to the hospital in Heraklion on Thursday 16^th September 2010, they gave a lift to a person known to them, and found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

• All three were arrested along with two others at the hospital, two more men were arrested later, and another brother of Mark’s was arrested in the police station the next day, while he was there trying to find out what was happening to his brothers. In total there were 8 Albanian men arrested over the course of two days.
• The charges brought against all men, including Mark and Andreas were

1. Being members of an armed criminal organisation
2. 7 armed robberies of jewellers in Crete during the summer 2010 (subsequently this became 10 armed robberies at a later date)
3. The theft of 12 cars
4. Armed assault
5. Possesion of illegal arms
6. Possesion of drugs

• Mark has never been found in posession of any drugs or arms. His brothers apartment where he stayed while in Crete was searched and no such items were found there or on his person. During the time Mark and Julie lived in Crete together, sharing an apartment with his brothers, their apartment was illegally searched without warrant on a number of occasions. At no stage were drugs, arms or jewellery ever found. These types of searches are commonplace for Albanians in Crete as well as “stop and search” practices on the street in order to identify illegal immigrants.

• Mark was remanded in custody to await trial on 22^nd September 2010. While awaiting trial, Mark appeared before the court for two mandatory bail hearings, after six months and twelve months of detention. Despite the fact that all DNA analysis reports were returned negative for all eight men, bail was refused on the grounds of flight risk. At no stage during these hearings was any of the substantial defence evidence for Mark even considered.

• The Book of Evidence closed in October 2011, long after the four to six months guidelines had passed. At this point the protocol is for a pre-trial to take place in the form of written submissions by the prosecution and defense, and the decision of which, if any, charges are to be brought forward to trial made by the chief judge. Mark received written notification at the prison, informing him of the date of the trial and the charges against him (which subsequently were the same for all eight men) the morning after his defense submissions had been made, ie. The decision on the charges against Mark was made with his defense memorandum not being considered, as it had not even reached the court by the time the decision was taken. This despite the fact that Mark’s defence memorandum was submitted within the ten day time frame required from the close of the Book of Evidence.

• The non-jury trial scheduled for the 19^th January 2012 began on Monday 23^rd January 2012. It began with the defence lawyers argueing that the civil prosecution case against all 8 men be denied as the application had not been submitted accurately and appropriately. The Prosecuter and the Council of Judges however allowed the civil cases to continue. The defense lawyer explained that this was to save face with the public.

• The trial lasted for four days, with a total of 50 witnesses against the 8 men called, of which 32 turned out. They were all asked to leave the court room at the beginning of the proceedings however this was a formality as each and every one past in and out of the court, at will, throughout the two days of the prosecutions case.

• The majority of witnesses explained the crimes committed against them but also explained they could not identify anybody as the raiders wore masks. However several witness identified the men, including Mark as the raiders that had committed these crimes. Their justification for these identifications where body height and build and eye colour. Mark is 5ft 8inch medium build with brown eyes, the same characteristics of approximately half the young male population on the island of Crete. Other witnesses claimed to have the ability to see through masks, while others eventually conceeded they identified the men because the police had told them these were the culprits. Mark’s lawyer, in an emailed letter to Mark’s father-in-law on the 31st of January 2012, stated “I agree with you that the “trial” was an absolute scandal. I would characterize it as a trial of purpose“. He also stated “I realised that Mark’s guilt has been already decided by the court without taking in consideration our allegations and the FACTS of this case“.

• The statements made by the witnesses at the trial and prevously at the police station were hugely inconsistent and unreliable. One man, who identified Mark with 100% certainty, claimed in his initial police statements that he believed the raiders were Romanian, because of their accents. At the court he claimed the raiders were definitely Albanian. This same man claimed the person who attacked him was no more that 165cm in height with thick arms and hands. Later he chose Mark from the 8 men and insisted it was him even though Marks passport states he is 178cm in height and he does not has “thick arms or hands”. Mark also presented a very reliable Greek alibi for his whereabouts at the time of this robbery.

• A second witness against Mark identified him but without certainty based on his body build. The defence lawyer responded to this by present the three brothers side by side to this man and asking him what distinguishes Mark from the other two men, from the neck down. The response “nothing”. This same man identified Andreas with 100% certainty and claimed to have pulled the mask up off his head (in an upward motion) and remembered his face yet he was unable to tell the court the distinct features that made him certain it was Andreas. Later the court showed CCTV footage of this robbery however nothing could be drawn from it except that inconsistancies in the witnesses statement existed. He claimed to have pulled the mask up however on the footage we witnessed this man’s arm move in a downward fashion and the face of the raider could not be seen.

• Another witness identified Mark at a robbery on a date when we had solid evidence he was in Ireland. This same witness claimed to identify five men even though his mother who was also at the scene could not identify any. Mark’s defence lawyer presented Mark to this witness, bringing him very close and asking him was he certain this was one of the raiders? To which he responded yes. The lawyer repeated this question several times before presenting a list of evidences including airline tickets, passport stamps, affidavits from landlords and business owners here in Ireland as well as social welfare records. The witness was in shock and retracted and said oh there was only four men not five.

• Finally a forth witness identified Mark at trial. However four months after her attack took place she did not identify Mark at the police station but twenty months later she could “identify” Mark at the trial. She initially pick another man, not Mark however the judge told her the police admitted they made a mistake with that man and he was not involved. She insisted on this man several times and after the judges insistence she changed her ”identification” to Mark. She later admitted she made these statements because the police had told her these men were the culprits.
• All of the above witness statements should have been inadmisable in court for the following reasons:

1. Greek law stipulates that before a person can identify a defendent they must describe them clearly in a statement prior to seeing them in person. This did not happen in Mark’s case.
2. All eight men were presented to the witnesses together without any other non-related persons in a line up.
3. Finally these identifications were made after the police publically declared this their “biggest victory in 20 years in Crete”.

• The police collected almost one hundred samples of DNA from all the crime scenes and in December 2010 the result came back negative for all eight men accused. However DNA was found for four unknown people and one known person no longer in custody.

• Ten days prior to the trial a DNA report was leaked to another lawyer representing some of the other men, and this report claimed that one item, a pair of pink rubber gloves, tested positive for Mark’s DNA while a balaclava tested positive for one other man’s DNA. Mark and this other man should have been notified of this report once the court received it in November 2011 however they failed to do so. Also there were several reasons why this report is extremely suspicious.

1. Both these items were tested and came back negative for Mark or anybody elses DNA in the report we received in December 2010.
2. These items were claimed to have been found in a stolen car that was alleged to have been used for a robbery on the 5^th June 2010. However the report completed on the retrieval of this vehicle makes no reference to any items found inside the vehicle.
3. Every other item collected from the scenes of the crimes had a subsequent document stating details of the retrieval of the item however only these two items out of nearly one hundred did not have these necessary documents. For this reason it cannot be confirmed how and when these gloves where retrieved and also how Mark’s DNA was found on the gloves even though twelve months earlier they tested negative.
4. Mark was not in Greece at the time of the robbery that they claimed these gloves were used.
5. Lastly the witness for this robbery never mentioned these pink gloves in his first statment at the police station however at the trial claimed the raider wore pink gloves.

For all of the above reasons this “scientific report” should have been inadmisable at the trial.

• The third day of trial was dedicated to the defence witnesses and the defendents. The final day of trial was the prosection and defense lawyers summation. At this stage the prosecuter claimed that Mark’s extensive documentary evidence, which proved when Mark was in Ireland, had been falsified despite the fact that since this documentation had been submitted in October 2011, no attempt to verify these claims were made. Mark’s lawyer said “Prosecutor’s behaviour was indeed disgraceful. The fact that she disputed, after the end of the probative proceeding, the authenticity of the documents and evidences proving Mark’s alibi is illegal, shocked me“.

• On the 28^th of January 2012 Mark, Andreas and 3 other men were found guilty for all of the above charges even though the prosecution only presented witnesses that were not credible against Mark, for only three of the robberies.

The Lawyer’s quotes have been taken from an emailed letter received by Mark’s father-in-law on the 31st of January 2012 and can be read in full by accessing the link on the testimonial page.