By Lucy Turnbull 

The answer is both, a simple, practical answer and a deep, philosophical answer. So, let's start with the philosophical, then move on to the practical; and situate the whole thing in relation to Charles' experience. 

 

Law is different in every country.  If you were to have a dispute in a number of Muslim countries you may have to deal with Sharia Law, which is based on Islamic philosophy and religious doctrine.  Even the punishment for murder can be decided by the victim's family under Sharia Law, because that is the country law in countries with Sharia Law.

 

The UK is no different. It is an undisputed fact that UK law is also based on a philosophical history and principles derived from the Enlightenment, which are still highly relevant and influential in British Law (English and Scottish). 

 

We could look at various philosophical and legal arguments as to what the current justice system is supposed to aim for when British citizens are accused of crimes or accuse other people of crimes.  It is important to understand how the law is supposed to operate, even if it doesn't always achieve that. 

 

Let's begin with the belief that Britain has a Constitution - it does not.

​

Is the Magna Carta the same as the US Constitution?

 

Many British people appeal to the Magna Carta and think of it as similar to the American Constitution, but it is not remotely similar.  The Charters within the Magna Carta are not truly relevant now, in the C21st.  It was repealed, then amended, then appealed, over-written by other laws, and most legal experts accept that it is out of date and irrelevant.  Even when people try to use it, it is always dismissed. Whereas the 27 Amendments in the American Constitution cannot be played with, without consequence. 

 

That is the first difference.

 

Recently, some campaign groups tried to use the Magna Carta to prevent their human rights being denied or to argue that their occupation of buildings/their right to campaign/protest/dissent superseded the British State's right to prevent them or deny them.  However, they were unsuccessful.  It is considered out of date in the current British Justice System.

 

In contrast the American constitution and the Bill of Rights are enshrined in law, as a set of rules codified in 1787.  Both the plaintiff and the accused must adhere to the Bill of Rights in all court cases.  Americans are more explicitly protected. 

 

The British 'Constitution' does not really exist.  Claims that the makeup of the British Constitution makes it flexible are far-fetched, in my honest opinion.  It consists, apparently, of judicial conventions, statute, common law and, often, the Magna Carta is alluded to. 

​

The British Constitution is vague in comparison to the US Constitution. 

​

However, access to your rights and a good defence/attack, in the UK, is mostly dependent upon money and luck.  Whether you can find a good lawyer, an interested lawyer, a lawyer willing to defend you without prejudice; or a judge(s) willing to oversee a fair and legal case, again, without prejudice. 

 

Additionally, it is not only luck and money which determine how much, or in what way you experience justice and your rights in the UK, it also depends upon how corrupt (or sadistic) the people in the system are; how ideologically captured they are and often how competent they are.  And, I mean, old ideologically captured, in terms of your perceived social class and your right to liberty.  To have liberty and legal rights, the system needs lawyers and judges who treat you as if you have these basic rights.  And there needs to be full access and full access to redress.  These things do not exist in the current British Justice System, and maybe they never did.  

​

Philosophical arguments underpinning British Law are ancient

​

All current European and British laws were written based on ideas, yes ideas, and complex political, economic, philosophical and sociological arguments mostly developed in The European and British  Enlightenments. The contrast between, for example, humanist Rousseau (C18th) and arguments such as those of Thomas Hobbes (1651), who argued that human nature was naturally, 'nasty, brutish and short'; and that government was necessary to protect people from their natural, barbaric, violent and basic nature.  Hobbes viewed nature as a constant conflict in relation to self-interest and survival and structured society and government was necessary to control them.

​

Jean-Jaques Rousseau (also C18th) in contrast argued the opposite, that humanity's natural state was kind, peacefully solitary and compassionate and that it was a broken society and broken government which introduced inequality, competition, corruption and moral corruption.  This then led to violence.  Government should therefore be there to protect human nature and uphold inherent moral standards.  Human and humane standards intended to promote the best in people.

​

A Social Contract

​

In reality, and of course there were other philosophers and ideas, human nature is more complex than this and individuals and groups are influenced by a multifactor of things.  However, this debate during the Enlightenment was the start of the idea of a social contract. The idea that law and the application of law should not be arbitrary and irrational. 

 

A social contract still exists today, implicitly, or so we are led to believe. 

 

The social contract applied, regardless of what your beliefs and ideas are, means that you are to be protected by an organised, rational society and a clear system of law to uphold the social contact, so that all benefit from it. To enjoy the benefits and rights of, say, education, health care and justice, you must agree (implicitly or explicitly, and most obviously when it comes to testing these rights and privileges) that you will abide by the laws of the land, vague as they are.  

 

So, the British Justice System is based on these ideas, that people can be nasty, brutish and violent, but also compassionate, kind and peaceful; and it is the role of the justice system (police, experts, lawyers, judges and a panel of peers (a jury)), to ascertain the moral correctness, in alluding to laws, and philosophical and legal arguments, of how the social contract was broken, and by whom, if it was at all.

​

In the UK, citizens are raised to believe in these things, from nursery, to university.  Ideas. European philosophical ideas, political ideas, such as democracy, fairness, compassion, equality, are drilled into children and young people (and adults).  It is implicit and explicit.  British people are told: You live in a democracy.  You have rights.  You have lawyers.  You are British.

​

If it were ever true, it is not now.  It is a myth. It is a cruel, destructive and inhumane myth. When people realise it is one big lie, they become tortured and, ironically, they will fight hard for those beautiful ideals which they internalised and believed were theirs.  Beautiful ideas are powerful motivators.

​

Charles Harris has been tortured and tormented deliberately by Goss.

​

Charles Harris believed in these ideas.  He has been tormented and tortured for over 29 years - for more than half of his lifetime because he believed in these ideas.  He has been tormented by the fact, that purely coincidentally, on 22nd December 1996, he got involved in a fight, in a pub with another guy, which resulted in him being imprisoned for five years from 1998 to 2003.  Then, when he tried to prove his innocence, and it seems he did, in court, supported by exculpatory evidence and the opinion of expert witnesses, the facts were ignored. 

​

Evidence was omitted. An expert was not invited.  A judge and prosecution barrister thought it all one big joke, changing the charge to fit their preferred narrative and then convicting Charles on the new version, supported by no facts or evidence at all.  Supposition.  Not on the balance of probabilities.  For expedience.  BIAS.

 

The liberty of a man - to be played with, mocked, treated like it was losing a bet on the golf course.  Facts ignored. Witnesses for the defence ignored. Court transcripts lost or redacted. Secret conversations between Judge Goss and Harris' barrister (both from the same Chambers) seemingly influencing the pre-determined outcome.

 

You cannot possibly call this justice or the correct application of justice, and justice has not been seen to be done.  Rather it has been seen to be undone.   

​

But I am not a judge, nor a lawyer, nor a medical expert. It is not my job to assess whether an injury, in an event 29 years ago was intentional or accidental.  It is almost impossible for me to attempt to consider all relevant variables in this situation, but from the evidence available, and it is only just available, because Charles had to fight hard to get access to the information he is apparently entitled to, in law.  If you cannot freely access the information you need, a court, judge and jury needs, to ascertain innocence or guilt, then the system is designed to be arbitrary and unchallengeable.  It is deliberately weighted against justice.

​

Charles fought whilst incarcerated; then when he was released; and he is still fighting to be heard, nearly twenty years later.

 

It seems Charles has indeed suffered a huge miscarriage of justice. 

 

Losing five years of your life and liberty without reason or justification, at 30 years old, will shape your perception for the rest of your life; your perception of who you are and how others see you, and the perception of society and justice. 

 

I believe Charles is innocent, and, even if he were not innocent, he was denied a fair trial. 

 

Maybe being denied a fair trial is worse than actually being convicted whilst being innocent, because to truly be a functioning, productive and healthy person you need to be able to prove to others that you are who you say you are. Just knowing it is often not enough.  There should have been safeguards within the system that were observing and correcting any miscarriage that could happen, that did happen.

​

There is maybe one thing worse than being accused and convicted of a crime, and being innocent of that crime; it is not being able to use the system in the way it is supposed to be used to try to prove your innocence.  It is a double sentence and a indefinite, psychological prison inside a prison.

​

Judge Goss did not give a toss for justice.

 

By all accounts, especially the court accounts, Charles DID prove he was innocent.  What convicted him was the fact that Judge Goss appeared to not care one bit for the facts, was not interested in the evidence or expert opinion, nor for the ideals behind the social contract or the correct testing of who broke it.  He did not adhere to the principle of beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities.  He did not consider all evidence and did not ensure that all the evidence was presented to the jury.  He did not delay the judgement so that both expert witnesses were available and he then appears to have had the official records retrospectively altered to make it look as if his decision was based on sound argument. 

 

This is a doubly, inhumane injustice.  How disgustingly flippant he appears to have made his decision. 

 

To face a man like this, with such unjustified power would have been devastating and cruel.  A seemingly corrupt or incompetent judge not taking his duties seriously or responsibly and then apparently being unconcerned that his final judgement was not sound. 

 

Until he realised Charles was going to continue to fight for his innocence. 

 

 Goss' behaviour, described in detail by Charles on this website, is an example of moral and legal corruption.

​​​

On a personal note, a long, long time ago, I also used to believe that the British justice system functioned adequately enough to allow people unfortunately involved in such unlucky situations the opportunity to explain, defend and have professionals defend them.  It is a fundamental human right, under UDHR Article 6 - Your right to a fair trial.  And, in criminal cases, the right to access all relevant information, including the accurate recording and filing of that information in the case of an appeal.  Now, I do not believe most people have a chance, unless they have a lot of disposable income to throw at lawyers.

​

Charles is tortured by the fact he was convicted on a lie and was just unlucky enough to have a bent judge make the corrupt and immoral decision to incarcerate him. Any normal human being would be similarly tortured.  It is a moral torture and a mental torture.  He was made into a social pariah by Judge Goss.  You cannot regain years lost, liberty lost, overcome such unjust torture (because prison is intended to torture people) by simply 'moving on'.  Some people do, but the idea remains in their head forever, reminding them of the injustice done to them. The harm done to their humanity.  Their efforts to be a good person dismissed and denied.  

​

It is a fundamental human and moral right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty and with compassion, until or if you are found guilty of a crime.  

​

Charles was not guilty and it was not proven that he was guilty, but this does not seem to be of importance to Judge Goss.  It is highly probable that innocent and guilty are things which were never important to Goss in all of his career.  Many more lives have probably been destroyed by Goss and all of his previous convictions should be looked at again, in a just and civil society.  This would be a safeguarding process which is not available in the current system.

​

Twenty years later - Lucy Letby​​​​

 

It was not until a high-profile case occurred, which drew the attention of a global audience that Judge Goss has been justifiably put under the spotlight.  Multiple experts, across the world, have laser-like focused on the Lucy Letby case and proven, without a shadow of a doubt that Judge Goss is either, or both, incompetent or corrupt; that the judicial process was flawed and corrupt; and that another massive miscarriage of justice occurred.  

​

Goss has since retired (Feb 2026).  Let's hope he was 'persuaded'.

​

There is a fundamental and inhumane flaw in the justice system when innocent people are convicted and there are no humane, above all working, safeguarding processes to ensure justice is done correctly and injustice is addressed quickly.  It seems, the more you question an incompetent and corrupt judge the more likely they are to try to destroy your person, your humanity and your right to life, in any way they care.​​​​

​

The British Justice System is broken and corrupt.

​

When Lucy Letby is freed, and she will be freed, all of Goss' previous convictions (including Charles') should also be reconsidered, and pardons for all innocent persons publicly given, with an apology and a recognition of the harm done. 

 

Not just to the individual but to the whole of society and humanity.