Mail, which was not disclosed to the jury when he gave evidence at the original trial. The appeal was rejected, with the court stating: "Taking all the evidence relating to the timing and events on the Thursday night and the succeeding days into account we conclude that, on the whole of the material we have reviewed, there is no basis for saying there is even a lurking doubt about the safety of the convictions of Rowe and Davis, the same applies to Johnson. On the contrary, the case against them all was, and remains, a formidable one." In 1994, Davis and Rowe made an application to the European Court of Human Rights. Criminal Cases Review Commission In 1997 the Criminal Cases Review Commission appointed an investigating officer from Greater Manchester Police to carry out enquiries into the case, and in January 1999 the investigating officer submitted his report. This disclosed that: Duncan was a registered police informant who had contacted his handler on 18 December 1988 about the crimes Over two days of questioning, Duncan had alleged that the gang consisted of Rowe, Davis and Jason Cooper, not Johnson Investigating officers had discussed the possibility of a reward being paid to him at the conclusion of the case No prosecutions were carried out against Duncan, Griffin, Cooper or Jobbins Cooper was himself a known burglar with a previous conviction for robbery The foreman of the jury had visited the site of the murder without the knowledge of the court There was no evidence to link Johnson to any of the scenes of crime or to any property stolen from them Witness testimony suggested that at least one of the gang was white There existed a possibility of the persons responsible for the attack upon Hurburgh and Eley having returned to the bail hostel in the Austin Princess before the same vehicle set off for the Napier's residence with a different team inside The report concluded that: "The new evidence and arguments... create a real possibility that Mr Johnson was not one of those three persons. Whilst there is evidence specifically linking Messrs Rowe and Davis to the robberies, if the prosecution against one of the three, Mr Johnson, might no longer be sustainable, in the Commission's view the Court of Appeal ought at the same time have the opportunity to consider whether the case can still be sustained against Messrs