CCRC refuses Mark Osborne Romford murder conviction appeal

The star prosecution witness against Harold Hill man Mark ‘Ozzy’ Osborne admitted to the official miscarriage of justice watchdog that he “gave the wrong evidence” at Ozzy’s trial.

In a report seen by this newspaper, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) wrote that the witness “said he was now in his 40s and had given thought and doesn’t want the guilt hanging over him. He said he was younger and gave the wrong evidence.”

But the CCRC failed to record the telephone call, then dismissed the witness’s confession, saying it did not believe the Court of Appeal would agree to consider it.

“It defies belief,” fumed Julie Major, a recently qualified lawyer leading the campaign to overturn Ozzy’s conviction.

“He was the most important witness against Ozzy. Nobody else ever said Ozzy was involved.

“It’s a shambles. The CCRC is not there to help victims of miscarriages of justice. It’s there to help the government and the Court of Appeal keep innocent people in prison.”

NHS worker Julie Major recently passed her legal exams. She began training as a lawyer after taking on her family friend Mark 'Ozzy' Osborne's murder case, convinced of his innocence (Image: Charles Thomson)

The murder

Ozzy was convicted in 2009 of murdering his friend Mark Tredinnick in Noak Hill, Romford – even though he was in prison for an unrelated lesser offence when the killing occurred.

Mr Tredinnick was lured to Benskins Lane in June 2007 and shot with a machine gun in front of his terrified partner and four-year-old son.

Three men were convicted: Ozzy, his drug-dealer brother Tony Osborne, at the time of Church Hill in Loughton, Essex and their associate Wayne Collins then of Campion House, Rush Green.

The prosecution contended that Mr Tredinnick worked for Tony’s drug-dealing business and Ozzy was involved in the business too.

They said the brothers plotted together to have Mr Tredinnick murdered because they believed he had double-crossed them in a drug deal.

Tony pleaded not guilty at trial but has since given a sworn statement to an independent solicitor, saying he and Wayne organised the shooting but Ozzy is innocent and knew nothing about it.

'Ozzy' Osborne (right with Julie)was 26 when he was convicted of Mark Tredinnick's murder. He is now 41 - and will be in his 50s by the time he is eligible for parole. But he may never be released unless he confesses to the crime, which he insists he did not commit (Image: Julie Major)

The jailhouse snitch

The only witness who ever implicated Ozzy was what is known in the legal world as a “jailhouse snitch” – a prisoner who did a deal to testify against Ozzy in return for his own lenient treatment.

In Ozzy's case, this was a Somalian illegal immigrant, described by the Home Office as a “habitual offender” who had 12 aliases, eight dates of birth and was facing deportation after racking up convictions for GBH, ABH and robbery with a firearm.

But his deportation was cancelled after he testified against Ozzy.

He initially approached the prison, said Julie, reporting simply that Ozzy “knew someone that had committed a murder”.

But his story later changed. He claimed to have heard Ozzy and Tony plotting the murder over the phone, two days before it happened.

That new story was proven false by phone records: there were no calls between the two brothers for at least a month before the murder.

The witness then reverted to his old story, saying he overheard a call between Ozzy and Collins after the killing, in which Wayne disclosed that he had murdered Mr Tredinnick.

Despite that story not demonstrating any foreknowledge of the offence, Ozzy was charged with murder and later convicted by a jury.

He was sentenced to life with a minimum of 30 years.

The only other evidence implicating him was that Mr Tredinnick’s girlfriend thought she heard the shooter say, “That’s from Mark.”

Julie contends that Mr Osborne was known by all as Ozzy and was even saved in Mr Tredinnick’s phone as Ozzy, so it would make no sense to deliver a message from him as being ‘from Mark’.

As the victim’s name was also Mark, she feels it is more likely that the girlfriend simply misheard a comment including his own name, like, ‘That’s for you, Mark’.

Mark 'Ozzy' Osborne was 26 when he was convicted of Mark Tredinnick's murder, but had already been in prison when the shooting occurred. He has been behind bars since he was 22. He is now 41 (Image: Julie Major)

The confession

In late 2022, the jailhouse snitch, now back in Somalia, contacted her and admitted his account at trial had not been true – but asked for £30,000 to tell the truth.

However, he later abandoned that request, participated in video calls to prove his identity, and said he only wanted to be assured he would not have to pay his own legal fees – around £300 – for providing a statement.

Julie reported the contact to the CCRC and asked it to take over. In a subsequent report, it confirmed having spoken to the witness, who said he was coming forward out of “guilt” and had not told the truth at trial.

He said he had been upset at Ozzy over something that happened in prison, so had got him back by implicating him in the murder.

But he reiterated that he would not pay his own legal fees, telling the CCRC: “If they want a statement, they have to pay for it.”

“[He] was asked why he initially asked for £30,000… he got annoyed and ended the call,” the CCRC wrote. “As this call was an external outgoing call, it was not recorded by the CCRC.”

Knowing the witness had now repeated his confession to the CCRC, Julie sent £330 to cover the supposed legal fee for the sworn statement – but it never materialised.

“He said he was worried he would get arrested if he came back to England, for giving false information at trial,” Julie said. “Then he just disappeared.”

Julie has become part of a campaign movement over joint enterprise murder prosecutions after Ozzy was jailed for a murder committed by somebody else while he was locked up in prison (Image: Julie Major)

The rejection

Julie assumed that the star witness recanting to the CCRC would be sufficient to refer Ozzy’s case to the Court of Appeal.

“Surely the CCRC’s word would be trusted by the Court of Appeal,” she said.

But in its report, the CCRC suggested it was not even sure the person it spoke to really was the witness.

“The CCRC has considered the content and circumstances of what appears to be negotiations with someone stated to be the witness to provide a statement in support of the applicant’s submissions,” it wrote.

“These dealings with [the witness] however, were made in circumstances where money was initially demanded by [the witness] for which he would redact [sic] his trial evidence. In any event, the efforts concluded with no statement being provided.

“The CCRC does not believe that the Court of Appeal would agree to receive this information.”

“It was definitely him,” Julie exclaimed. “They had photos. I provided recordings. He told me things back from the past, that him and Ozzy did, that no one could know apart from him.

“But the CCRC made no effort whatsoever to confirm that this was him. They did no investigation whatsoever.”

She added that it was incorrect to suggest she had engaged in any “negotiations”.

NHS worker Julie Major said the CCRC was 'a shambles' and its decision in Ozzy Osborne's case was 'ridiculous' (Image: Charles Thomson)

Anger

Julie said that in her opinion, the CCRC’s decision “doesn’t make sense”.

If the fact that he is the sort of person who would demand money for courtroom testimony discredits his current story, she contends, then it must also cast severe doubt on the reliability of his testimony at trial as well.

“He was unreliable in the first place – but he was still allowed to send Mark down for 30 years,” she explained, exasperated.

“Yet when we want to use him in Mark’s defence, it suddenly matters that he’s unreliable.

“The rubbish they come back with, I find very condescending – and factually incorrect. After waiting years for a decision, you at least expect it to be factually correct.

“Ozzy is obviously very sad about it. He is doing very well in prison. He has a responsible job in the gym. But this has knocked him for six. He said to me, ‘They just don’t listen. What does it take? You’ve only got to look at the facts.’

“He could spend another 16 years in prison. He’s never going to get his life back. It’s just beyond belief. It’s ridiculous.”

CCRC

Julie's comments are the latest in a string of criticisms directed at the CCRC, which was recently found to have cost innocent man Andrew Malkinson up to 10 extra years in prison by repeatedly failing to refer him to the Court of Appeal, despite the existence of DNA evidence proving his innocence.

An independent review by Chris Henman KC described the CCRC’s practice as “thinking of reasons why the Court of Appeal might reject the referral”, when it should actually “aspire to capturing more miscarriages of justice”.

Julie has filed an appeal, but said she had been given no indication as to when it would be ruled on.

The CCRC said: “An application in relation to this case is currently with us and a review is underway.

“A provisional finding has been issued but further submissions are still possible.

“As this is still an active review, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”