Schoolboy's conviction is quashed

secure detention unit.

Ivan Fergus was 13 and doing well at school when he was arrested and

later convicted of assault with intent to rob -- solely on the basis of

highly questionable identification evidence.

Three Court of Appeal Judges, who quashed his conviction yesterday

after the Crown conceded it could not stand, were told that the assault

victim described his attacker as:

* About 5ft 11ins in height -- Ivan was four inches shorter.

* Of light brown complexion -- Ivan is dark Afro-Caribbean.

* Aged 16 to 18 -- Ivan was only 13.

* Having stubble on his chin -- Ivan was baby-faced.

* Having patterns shaved in the hair on the sides of his head -- Ivan

insisted he adopted a patterned hairstyle only between the date of the

crime and his arrest a month later.

The teenager, now 16, of Hastings Close, Peckham, London, was

sentenced to 15 months' youth custody by Judge Peter Rowntree at Inner

London Crown Court in January last year, and released on bail in July

pending appeal.

Lord Justice Steyn said yesterday: ''Ivan Fergus may leave this court

knowing not just that his conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory, but

that it is our judgment that the case against him was a wholly false one

and he is entirely innocent.''

The Judge, sitting with Mr Justice Hutchison and Mr Justice Rougier,

will give reasons for the court's decision in a week's time.

The appeal Judges were told the principal blame for the injustice lay

at the feet of the defence lawyers, particularly his solicitors at the

time, Topping & Co, of New Cross, London, who have since been suspended

from practice over other complaints.

They failed to call evidence from three schoolfriend alibi witnesses,

or from the boy's mother Mrs Nellie Fergus, who knew he did not own the

clothes described by the assault victim and could have spoken of her

son's good character, or from his uncle David who had cut his hair.

The youth's appeal counsel, Mr Ben Emerson, said police were also

partly to blame in failing to investigate his alibi at the start,

despite being urged to do so by the Crown Prosecution Service. They also

made no attempt to contact the uncle.

The trial Judge's summing-up to the jury was inadequate because he

failed properly to summarise the defence case and did not give a proper

warning, as laid down by the Court of Appeal in previous cases, on the

dangers of convicting on identification evidence alone.

Mr Emerson said a photograph taken of Ivan Fergus at the time of his

arrest proved he could not have been the attacker, but it was not shown

to the jury.

Lord Justice Steyn ruled that the case should have been withdrawn from

the jury in view of the weaknesses in the identification evidence, and

that the Judge's inadequate summing-up amounted to a ''material

irregularity'' in the trial.

The court's full judgment, next week, is expected to be highly

critical of many of those concerned in the case.

The Judges expressed disquiet yesterday at the initial non-disclosure

by the police of the photograph of the accused, and the fact that the

arresting officer's crime report containing the assault victim's

description of his attacker was not sent to the CPS.

Later, Ms Harriet Harman, MP for Peckham, said in a statement: ''I'm

calling for a full investigation into the Crown Prosecution's handling

of the case, and the police investigation into the case, and will be

calling for the Home Office to consider compensation for the time Ivan

Fergus spent in custody for a crime he didn't commit.''

Outside court, Ivan said his six months in the secure unit

at Orchard Lodge young offenders' institution in south London, had set

back his GCSE work although his teacher did help.