A 'David and Goliath' battle
A student who spearheaded Alex Allan's fight for compensation last night told of their "David and Goliath" court battle.
Final year undergraduate John Morgan took on the case in 2002 as part of his law degree at Northumbria University.
Now 28, he recently joined Dickinson Dees as a commercial property solicitor, and cited Mr Allan's case as the springboard for his career. He said: "It took three years to get compensation for Alex and the case was very challenging.
"It was real David-and-Goliath stuff. I worked on the appeal during my final year in 2002-2003 when we presented appeal papers.
"I got quite attached to the case because it has consumed a lot of my time. Alex is a nice chap who has been waiting for this for a long time - I'm very pleased for him."
Mr Morgan graduated from Northumbria in 2003 and then spent two years training at Robert Muckle solicitors in Newcastle before fully qualifying in 2005 and than joining Dickinson Dees.
He added: "Since working on Alex's case I have not looked back. Working with a client in this way was a valuable experience and it has made me a better lawyer."
---------------------------------------------------------
Student team probes cases
The criminal appeal clinic at Northumbria's Student Law Office works on behalf of clients who believe they have been wrongfully convicted.
There, prisoners' cases are reviewed by final-year law students, as part of their Exempting Law Degree.
At the moment the team are looking into about 20 convictions, including murder, drug supply, sexual offences, burglary and arson.
Since 1997 many students have been involved in the Alex Allan case with two students a year concentrating on it.
Kevin Kerrigan, supervising solicitor at the Student Law Office, said: "The students spotted that there was a major defect in police procedure - Mr Allan had not been cautioned when he was arrested.
"Therefore he never knew that he had the right to remain silent and not answer their questions.
"This meant that the police were in breach of the rules and the Court of Appeal could not be confident that their evidence could be used."
