CAMPAIGNERS will be demonstrating tomorrow outside Wakefield prison in support of a group of prisoners known as the UK 2000. They all claim to have been wrongly imprisoned as a result of false allegations of sexual abuse.

One of the UK 2000 members is Graham Walker, a former Blackrod businessman, who is serving eight years for offences of rape against a girl between the ages of 11 and 13.

As the demonstrators line up for their peaceful demonstration outside the prison walls, Graham Walker will be locked in his cell.

In the two years since his conviction, Walker has protested his innocence. His most recent attempt to get his conviction quashed was in January 1999, when his case was thrown out by the Court of Appeal.

In an unprecedented move, BEN reporter Jennifer Bradbury was given permission to interview him in prison. Although Walker's victim says he is guilty as proven by the courts -- his fight to clear his name continues. GRAHAM Walker is a convicted rapist -- but he claims he is a victim.

Walker, 47, is serving an eight-year sentence at Wakefield High Security Prison -- dubbed monster mansion --for rape and sexual offences against a minor.

Officially he's a member of that most scorned group of prisoners, the paedophiles.

But Walker, a widowed father-of-two, protests his innocence.

His hopes of being freed were dashed last year, when he became the first serving prisoner to have his case referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, then lose his case at the Court of Appeal.

To take on an appeal, the CCRC has to be convinced that there is a real possibility of the appeal succeeding.

But Walker is now making another bid to have his case considered by the CCRC, and is hoping to be one of the first people to go to the Court of Appeal twice.

It was in January ,1999 that Walker's appeal against conviction was dismissed. His trial jury heard that Walker was accused of an indecent assault on an 11-year-old girl at his former Blackrod home between 1978 and 1981.

It was not until 1995 that the victim reported the assaults, and by the time of Walker's trial she was in her 30s. Walker claims that her allegations are untrue and that she made up the story because she was "hell bent on revenge".

"It was my word against hers. There was no evidence."

His main grounds for appeal --that the judge had failed to warn the jury about the difficulties he faced because of the lapse of time between the incident and the trial -- was noted, but dismissed by the appeal court.

In prison, parole is denied to prisoners who will not confess and go on the Sexual Offenders' Treatment Programme.

Walker is looking at serving at least five years and four months.

If he confessed he would be looking at a reduced sentence of four years.

He said: "Life would be a lot easier if I confessed to something I'd not done and just served my time. But because I'm saying I did not do it, I serve a longer sentence."

He said: "I was convicted wrongly in 1997. But I am confident that one day I will prove my innocence. Once that is done the battle then begins to change a law that allows such absurd, unsafe convictions to happen. It is quite frightening when you realise that rape is the easiest allegation to make, but the most difficult to disprove." His fight to clear his name has involved writing hundreds of letters to fellow prisoners, MPs, MEPs, and Government ministers.

He said: "As far as I'm concerned I'm fighting for a change in the law. It's an absurdity of the law where one person can be locked up on the word of another. Women should be protected. But it's ridiculous that there's a law that doesn't require substantiation of any complaint. Right from the start I was named. But her identity was protected.

"During a trial the burden of proof should be on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am guilty.

"I maintain that during my trial the burden of proof shifted to the defence, and I had to prove I was innocent. And that's impossible when it's a case with no evidence. Just one person's word against another's."

He recalls the day he was contacted by the police to tell him of the allegations that had been made against him. He said: "To be honest I didn't take them very seriously. I appeared before Bolton magistrates and was given bail. I saw this as very positive. The charge against me was serious, and on a scale of 1-10 it was at least a nine. So they couldn't have considered me a risk." He says that his legal advisors reassured him, telling him there was no evidence, and that he'd walk away, his reputation intact.

But that didn't happen. He was found guilty, and in handcuffs, was taken to his first port of call, Strangeways, where he says he was beaten up by other prisoners.

Since conviction he has spent many hours scanning books trying to find grounds for appeal. Walker's solicitor is currently preparing a new application.

He said: "I will clear my name. I can't have this hanging over my head. And when I have cleared my name I will sue the complainant for false, wilful and malicious prosecution, and perhaps after that succeeding in the civil court future false accusers will think twice."

Walker's victim said she was not surprised to hear that he was still protesting his innocence and seeking another appeal. She described him as an "obsessive".

She said: "I know that it happened, and that I've told the truth. I've no reason to lie.

"I also realise that sooner or later he is going to get out. But that does not mean he's innocent. I've had my day in court, and I have the satisfaction of that. He is never going to convince anyone that matters that he's innocent."

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.