We, the undersigned, have grave concerns regarding the conviction of Jordan Cunliffe on 16th January 2008 and in the interests of justice we would urge you to consider the following points.

1) We believe the defence case was not prepared properly due to lack of time between the charge and the trial. The offence took place on 10th August 2007 and the trial began less than 15 weeks later on 19th November 2007. There were 5 defendants and we believe Jordan’s defence case was more complicated than even his co-defendants because of the points raised in 2) below.

2) Jordan suffers from an eye condition called keratoconus. Since conviction he has undergone an operation for a full corneal transplant in his left eye and requires another in the right eye. Only for the fact that he would go on to the transplant list at 16 and then have to UNregister, he would have been registered blind at the time of the offence. Sufficient expert medical evidence with regards to Jordan’s eyesight was not heard at trial. (A medical report was partially read out to the jury and this was not written in easyterms). It concerns us that the jury were not given any serious guidance either by the Judge or from an expert defence witness on Jordan Cunliffe's behalf as to how they, the jury, should have interpreted his disability and evidence.

3) We also question the prosecution’s case against Jordan under the law of Joint Enterprise considering that, because of his disability, he was unable to see and therefore could not witness any attack on the victim or have been aware that this was going to happen.

In conclusion, we believe Jordan Cunliffe has been discriminated against in regard to his disability and that he should not have been tried under the Joint Enterprise Law. In the fairness of justice Jordan Cunliffe should be entitled to an Appeal in which his severe disability is discussed and considered with due seriousness.