He had been contacted by Philippe St André who was then serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. Tomzack specialised in preparing cases to take before the English Court of Appeal. He regularly received letters from convicted prisoners setting out the most weird and wonderful reasons in support of the allegation that they had been wrongfully convicted. Everything from the judge and prosecutor being masons to claims that the evidence was planted or fabricated by police officers. Some of this could be rejected out of hand. Other complaints had to be taken more seriously. There was something in the letter from St André which made Tomzack think this was one to take seriously – very seriously.

He went to see the man in prison and found himself impressed by the way he recounted the evidence given at his trial by Warwick and his persistent denials that he had ever met Warwick. He had explained all this to his original solicitor and counsel but they had given the impression that they were distinctly underwhelmed by the whole affair. Virtually no attempt had been made to investigate Warwick’s past life and only the most formal of challenges had been made to his evidence.

Tomzack had agreed to take the case on and decided to carry out some background research. His firm employed a retired Detective Inspector as an investigator. His inquiries revealed Warwick’s past history including previous visits to court as a prosecution witness. It was clear to Tomzack that he had to speak to the man himself.

He had written requesting a meeting and, to his amazement, Warwick agreed. They came face to face in Strangeways prison in Manchester. After explaining the purpose of his visit and outlining the nature of the allegation made by St André, with rising astonishment, he listened while Warwick accepted that his evidence at the trial had been a complete fabrication.

‘Did you have to prompt him in any way?’

‘Not at all. It was the most extraordinary experience. He seemed quite keen to tell me the whole story. He was more or less boasting about what he had done. What he had achieved – almost.’

‘Did he tell you why he had done this?’

‘He was quite open about that too. He made up the story and gave evidence in order that he might plead in mitigation in his own case that he had helped the authorities in a major investigation.’

‘Did you ask him about the other cases you were aware of?’

‘Yes. He was just as open about them. Pure invention on his part. Indeed, he told me there had been other instances when he had given similar statements to the police but had not been called as a witness.’

‘What did you make of him?’