Lessons

The criminal justice system has never listened to Lloyd Paris – its loss. Lloyd shows dignity and decency even though those qualities are sadly lacking in the treatment he has received from it. His brother Tony was one of the victims of a now notorious miscarriage of justice. On Saint Valentine’s Day 1988 20-year-old Lynette White was murdered. It was a knife crime of exceptional brutality – a sexually motivated homicide. The case against his brother and four co-accused depended on a case scenario that Professor Dave Barclay described as “scientifically ludicrous”.

There were dire consequences for the Cardiff Five and their wider families. John and the late Ronnie Actie were acquitted in November 1990. Two years later Stephen Miller, the late Yusef Abdullahi and Tony Paris were freed on appeal, but the whispering campaign against them and subsequent damage continued for years. It ended, or should have in July 2003 when the Cardiff Five were vindicated by the conviction of Lynette White’s real killer.

Bad Form

There were many victims of this terrible case and further insults would occur. The Cardiff Five had lost a total of sixteen years between them for a crime Gafoor admitted he had committed on his own. More importantly, the crime-scene evidence, forensic pathology, forensic psychology, blood distribution patterns and DNA proved that Lynette had indeed been murdered by one person acting on their own and that man was Jeffrey Gafoor. Despite the serious aggravating circumstances, Gafoor receives a tariff – the minimum that he must serve before he becomes eligible to apply for parole – of just thirteen years. Amazingly, both Tony Paris and Yusef Abdullahi had received harsher tariffs for the same crime.

“Well it’s bad form to tell you the truth”, Lloyd Paris said. “You know the type of thing that man done, he should have done a lot more jail. I don’t know what the system’s coming to. They say it takes time for things to go round that slow, but it’s too slow. Everything is going too slow. It took all this time to get the police in court. It took the police all that time to get Gafoor. It’s silly. It really is silly”.

Max Hilll QC, then Vice President of Bar Association agreed that it would look odd to the public. “[Y]ou identify a need for precision in sentencing in miscarriage cases”, Hill said. “I’m happy to discuss that because clearly from a distance if as you tell me in the Lynette White case there was a sentence that was applied to those wrongly convicted, which was heavier than the person ultimately rightly convicted, to many people that would appear wrong and the question behind that may be, do you need to do something about tariff sentencing to ensure that doesn’t happen?”

(We will be answering this question in our forthcoming report Just Tariffs, and highlighting the problem in further articles).

The Western Mail’s Chief Reporter, Martin Shipton, believes that changes are required. “Well it suggests that there is something seriously wrong with the way in which tariffs are arrived at”, he said. “Now whether that is because there is insufficient guidance available to judges, whether the policy has changed over the intervening years, I’m not sure”. But Shipton is clear that there can be no excuses for innocent people receiving harsher tariffs than the innocent for the same crime, differences in when legal proceedings occurred, notwithstanding.

“Well it seems ludicrous that the tariff for the real killer is actually – ultimately – even when we are told that the fact that he allowed innocent people to go jail is taken into account is actually lower than the total amount of time that was spent in prison by the innocent people” [my emphasis].

The prosecution team in the Lynette White murder trial included two Queens Counsels, led by David Elfer. The other became Mr Justice Roderick Evans. Elfer failed to understand Stephen Miller’s vulnerability and used a confession that was false, ludicrous and unlawfully obtained. He relied on obviously unreliable witnesses and presented a case to the jury that should never have come to trial.

Both he and the CPS must have known that the statements of one of Yusef Abdullahiʼs alibi witnesses supported his claims that he had been working on a ship in Barry Docks on the night of the murder. Despite that knowledge they not only bluffed the defence into not calling vital alibi witness Brynley Samuel, but gave the jury the false impression that Samuel didnʼt help Abdullahi.

Judicial Responsibilities

The trial judges bear responsibility too. The late Sir David McNeill plainly had a standard on oppression that Lord Taylor strongly disagreed with – one that was open to shocking abuse. It set a standard that would have allowed police to find the weakest person and bully them into accepting what they wanted to hear. Even now some believe that there was nothing wrong with the way that Miler was questioned.

Taylor, sitting with a then Mr Justice (Sir John) Laws and Mr Justice (Sir Oliver) Popplewell, were ‘horrified’ by the methods that McNeill found admissible, but they too failed to resolve a vital issue. McNeill was wrong in law and that fact should have been acknowledged by the appeal judges. Had McNeill ruled on the confession as he should have done, the miscarriage of justice would probably not have occurred and the terrible error of not arguing that Miller had been bullied would likely not have happened in the second trial.

Severance

Even the next trial judge Mr Justice (Sir John) Leonard cannot escape censure. A few well-chosen words from judge to jury that Leonard thought would dispel the prejudice from refusing to sever Miller’s trial from that of his co-defendants who did not confess – a recurring theme in miscarriage of justice cases – were ignored by the jury. The same thing had happened in another South Wales case where Leonard was the trial judge less than five years earlier.

That too was later recognised as an awful miscarriage of justice – the Darvell brothers (Paul and Wayne). The murder of Sandra Phillips remains unsolved. Leonard should have been criticised by the Court of Appeal judges for his failure to sever these trials – in practice the only way to ensure that the trials of defendants who did not confess were not prejudiced by the admissions of those who did.

It must now be clear – it should have been at the time – that juries rely on confessions. They cannot believe that people confess to crimes they did not commit, especially for such a meagre reward as an end to the interrogations when that means sacrificing their long term interests and freedom, possibly for a very long time, but they do.

A Wretched History

The history of false confessions contributing to wrongful convictions is a long and wretched one that has continued to occur despite PACE. Understanding of the causes of these confessions and extent of vulnerabilities has undoubtedly improved, but defence lawyers cannot be immune from this process.

Millerʼs original lawyers had no idea or understanding of the extent of his vulnerabilities and need for robust support. The result was an egregious and entirely preventable miscarriage of justice, not just against Miller, but his co-accused too.

Inadmissible

The jury should have been protected from relying on inadmissible evidence like that, but it must be obvious that juries tend to believe confessions, however absurd, in these cases, especially without receiving the proper context of why innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit and on occasion implicate other innocent people. They too were not criticised by the appeal judges.

Those judges couldn’t wait to quash the convictions of the Cardiff Three, but in their rush to do so they failed to allow grounds to be developed that years later were at the heart of the recently failed trial of the former police officers and witnesses. Had those grounds been developed in 1992 as they should have been, safeguards that could have helped to prevent other miscarriages of justice would have been established.

Damage Limitation

The Court of Appeal refused to apologise and despite its strengths on the one area it considered in depth, the judgement that freed the Cardiff Three left them vulnerable to an unjustified and unjustifiable whispering campaign. That disgraces the criminal justice system.

It was in fact little more than a damage limitation exercise. However the attempt to force the lid shut on a can of worms, the like of which South Wales had never seen before, ultimately failed. The final reckoning and damage to both the force and criminal justice system proved far worse than if they had grasped the nettle two decades ago. There is a lesson in that.

The Cardiff Five are no more innocent now than they were when wrongly arrested and charged. They should never have gone through the ordeal that the state gave them no option but to endure and nor should Lynetteʼs family or indeed the people of South Wales. It should not have required finding the real killer to prove innocence and facilitate an investigation into what went wrong.

Hindrance

Stephen Miller’s solicitor when arrested for the murder of Lynette White, Graham Dobson used a local solicitor Geraint Richards to represent Miller in the interviews. His presence was a hindrance as legally Miller had been represented. Richards failed to intervene while Miller was interviewed in a manner that breached the protections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).

Miller was represented ably at the first trial by Anthony Evans QC, who presented the same arguments on oppression that Michael Mansfield QC argued successfully on appeal in December 1992. Evans found Mr Justice McNeill, who died before the first trial ended, in intransigent mood.

Intransigence

Had McNeill ruled as he should have done this case would have been thrown out in 1989. Instead it continued without criticism of McNeill being made by the appeal judges. Why? Judges must understand the law regarding oppression. McNeill’s decision on the admissibility of Miller’s confession was quite simply wrong.

The Court of Appeal, headed by then Lord Chief Justice Lord Taylor, was horrified by the same interviews that McNeill found admissible. He had heard the worst bullying and concluded that it was acceptable. He was wrong and so was the Court of Appeal in failing to highlight his flawed judgement on that issue – one that contributed to making this miscarriage of justice all but inevitable.

Wretched Luck

Evans was unavailable for the second trial. That almost concluded Miller’s wretched luck. Roger Frisby QC failed to argue that Miller had been oppressed in a case that is now one of the standard texts on oppression in a police station. The ‘confession’ was in. Leonard could have used his discretion under Section 78 of PACE to exclude it, but the exercise of that discretion is rare and Leonard didn’t apply it.

The jury heard the confession, but were deprived of the context and understanding of what could induce an innocent man to sign away his future for the shortest of gains and the most paltry reward – an end to the interviewing. His confession, which he retracted had the terrible consequence of convicting his co-defendants Yusef Abdullahi and Tony Paris, despite compelling evidence of innocence.

Inadequate

But there was more. Miller’s lawyers missed the significance of evidence that all but proved him innocent and was available for his trial. Languishing in the unused material was statements by Debbie Actie and Robyn Reed. The young women had seen Miller playing pool shortly after the Crown say Lynette was murdered. Those claims were never retracted.

There were trainer-prints, hairs, finger-prints, fibres and plenty of blood-staining – both that of the killer and of course Lynette’s. This meant that if Miller was guilty he would have had to have removed all traces of the scientific evidence that tied him to the flat and victim without showing any attempt to interfere with it.

He would then have had to clean himself and his clothes so thoroughly that not a speck of blood remained, but without interfering with the dirt on the white parts of his stone-washed jeans. He then had to go across the road to a nightclub and play pool without a change in general demeanour. He had to achieve all this within 20 minutes of the murder and as his lawyers knew with the IQ of an eleven-year-old child.

The prosecution case against Miller should have been laughed out of court – literally – but it was never contradicted as vigorously as it should have been. The poor performance of Miller’s solicitors and Roger Frisby QC have never been investigated, let alone censured.

The Suspension of Disbelief

There is no longer any credible doubt that the Cardiff Five¹ are innocent, but they always were. It should not have required the conviction of the real murderer of Lynette White to convince anyone. Any objective review of the evidence should have led inexorably to that conclusion. As with other miscarriage of justice cases the evidence and common sense ought to have prevented not only wrongful convictions, but the wrongful arrests too.

The murder of Lynette White is a tawdry tale of a vicious killing that involved excessive brutality – far beyond what was needed to kill – and the investigation and trials that followed of justice betrayed. It is now established as one of the most notorious and easily preventable miscarriages of justice in British history.

An extraordinary tale began in the early hours of Valentine’s Day 1988 with what was then the most brutal murder of its type in Welsh history – over 50 stab wounds – with obvious sexual overtones to it. After ten months the original inquiry revealed a closed mind that focused on obviously innocent men.

Forensic science proved the police’s scenario that five men and at least two alleged eyewitnesses were in that room along with the victim was quite frankly ludicrous. This became an egregious miscarriage of justice, but it ought to have been impossible. The quality of the evidence gathered against the five men who eventually stood trial was woeful to put it mildly.

It was a case that required an extraordinary suspension of disbelief from several professionals, especially lawyers who should have known better, but there is nothing in that story that does not occur routinely in other cases. It is the combination of what has gone wrong that is incredible. Equally unbelievable is the failure of the criminal justice system to halt a plainly inappropriate prosecution in its tracks and hold those who failed the public accountable.

Bullied and Hectored

It is well known that Stephen Miller was ‘bullied and hectored’ by police in interviews that breached his rights shamefully. Miller was shouted down until he accepted the police’s version of Lynette’s murder – a scientifically ludicrous scenario that produced an utterly false confession.

Miller was an extremely vulnerable person. He was highly suggestible and of below average intelligence. He was very susceptible to bullying and held to an absurd standard by David Elfer QC – a standard that required accepting everything put to him to meet Elfer’s definition of suggestibility.

Dr Gisli Gudjonsson, the acknowledged leader in his field, understood the extent of Miller’s vulnerability to making a false confession. Sadly Elfer did not and, even more worryingly, nor did Miller’s defence lawyers for his trial and retrial. Their failures contributed in no small measure to an awful miscarriage of justice.

Absurd

The victims of crime (or their family) have the right to give statements about the impact the crime has had upon them to the judge before he or she decides how long the guilty party must serve and rightly so. However, nowhere in the debate on victims’ rights is there any mention of the effects of the rights of victims of miscarriages of justice who have been vindicated, even though there should be no doubt that they have been victimised too.

Despite vindication – a miscarriage of justice that has been resolved by the conviction of the truly guilty – real perpetrators have been treated more leniently than the entirely innocent ones they allowed to be wrongly accused or convicted. That is shameful, especially as it was entirely preventable.

Horrific

The power to set tariffs (the minimum time that must be served of a life sentence) was taken away from the Home Secretary before the first case of vindication in a murder case in the DNA age in Britain, which occurred in July 2003 when Jeffrey Gafoor pleaded guilty to the murder of Lynette White. She was the victim of what was then (Valentine’s Day 1988) the most brutal murder of its type in Welsh history.

Her murder involved over fifty stab wounds, some of which were inflicted as she was dying or after death. Yusef Abdullahi, Steve Miller, Tony Paris and the cousins John and Ronnie Actie were charged with her murder and the Actie cousins were acquitted in November 1990, while the Cardiff Three were jailed for life. The wrongful convictions were quashed two years later, but not before the Cardiff Five had served a total of sixteen years actual prison time for a crime that they did not commit.

Unconscionable

Within a year of the publication of my book Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry in 1998, the case was re-opened and a combination of excellent police work and investigations by forensic scientists resulted in the arrest and conviction of Gafoor. He gave no comment interviews before admitting his guilt at his first appearance for pleas.

However the case against him was compelling as there was no answer to the DNA evidence, which could not have been planted for reasons that have been explained in The Cardiff Five: Innocent Beyond Any Doubt¹. Nevertheless, the law orders judges to credit defendants for ‘swift’ guilty pleas when setting tariffs. But did that apply in this case?

It was an horrific crime and Gafoor had allowed men he knew to be innocent to serve several years of actual imprisonment for his crime, but it was not entirely Mr Justice Royce’s fault that the tariff seemed unduly lenient. However, it remains obscene that there is a real possibility that the truly guilty Gafoor could serve less time in prison for a crime that he committed than the innocent men that he allowed to suffer wrongful imprisonment for the same crime. There can be no excuse for that.

Remorseless

Gafoor can show ‘genuine’ remorse for his crime, because he has reason to be sorry for murdering White, but the Cardiff Three could not without lying about their guilt – a lie that would have prevented her murder from ever being correctly resolved. Given the nature of the crime that they were convicted of they would have been deemed to be ‘in denial of murder’ if they failed to admit their guilt as well.

They would also have been required to take courses to address their offending behaviour, even though they were actually innocent. Gafoor can easily do all of this and progress through the system because he is guilty. Ironically, the system caters for the needs of the guilty and rewards them, but punishes the innocent.

The Cardiff Three could have been crushed by their experience of wrongful imprisonment, or worse still committed suicide in prison, while Gafoor savoured his ill-deserved freedom – none of which was taken into account when setting the tariff.

The criminal justice system claims to put victims at its centre of the system, so why have the Cardiff Five been denied the status they deserve as victims of Gafoor, the criminal justice system and perjury too?

Impact

The law allows the families of victims the right to give victim statements about how the murder of their loved one has affected them to judges before the tariff – the minimum that must be served before an offender is eligible to apply for release on parole – is set. This gives victims a say, but what about other victims?

Lynette White’s family did so before Mr Justice Royce imposed the tariff on Jeffrey Gafoor. Royce referred to them in his explanation of the tariff and described them as powerful, but Lynetteʼs family were not the only victims of Jeffrey Gafoorʼs hideous crimes. Despite being adversely affected by Gafoorʼs crimes for the rest of their lives the criminal justice system and criminal actions during the investigation, the Cardiff Five (Yusef Abullahi, John and Ronnie Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris) were given no input at all.

Surely they deserved that small courtesy that could have assisted in understanding the full effect of Gafoor’s crimes, especially as it is not even a criminal offence to knowingly allow innocent people to suffer wrongful imprisonment for his crime, but shouldn’t it be?

Support?

More than five years after they were proved innocent beyond any doubt they will probably never recover from their ordeal. Depriving them of the opportunity to detail how they too were victimised by Gafoor’s actions adds to it by denying the fact that they suffered greatly at his hands too.

Allowing them to give victim statements demonstrates in practice that they have indeed been victimised by his actions and shows that the criminal justice system takes its responsibilities seriously. It is an area that has shamefully neglected until now. There have been other vindication cases since the Cardiff Five made history and there will be more to come.

In this case it has already been proved that they were the victims of crime as well, as perjured testimony contributed to their wrongful convictions, but where is the support for them? As victims of crime are they not entitled to the assistance provided to others by organisations such as Victim Support? And if not, why not?

To date they have never received any and were not referred to Victim Support by the police. Nor did Victim Support make any effort to contact them despite the high profile nature of this case. They are clearly victims as well and should be treated as such, so the criminal justice system should acknowledge this and allow the victims of such miscarriages of justice the right to be heard and receive whatever.

Vindication

The law can be amended easily to allow vindicated victims like the Cardiff Five to give victim statements as well. It is surely not too much to ask that they be given the same courtesy that is afforded to the family of the victim of the murder. Other miscarriages of justice have been resolved in this manner now.

However, tariffs or sentences have been imposed without acknowledging the status of those who suffered the miscarriage of justice as victims deserving the right to voice their concerns. It was already too late for Stefan Kiszko who died without seeing Ronald Castree convicted of the murder of Lesley Molseed, but not for others.

Colin Stagg and the original defendants in the Damilola Taylor Inquiry were and alive when Robert Napper was brought to account for the killing of Rachel Nickell and the four boys who originally stood trial for the murder of Damilola Taylor when the Preddie brothers (Ricky and Danny) were finally brought to justice. There will be others.

The Right to be Heard

It is difficult to imagine a more disgraceful way to treat all of the victims of such cases and it is inevitable that there will be others that are resolved in this manner in the future. Without all the victims of these cases being given a voice further injustice will occur. The families of the victims of homicides have their say when tariffs are considered, but the victims of these miscarriages of justice are excluded by the system that has wronged them.

Why should the victims of such miscarriages of justice be denied the right to make victim statements? If victims are to be truly put at the heart of the criminal justice system then all the victims of cases such as this must be given a voice. It cannot roll back the years or spare them the ordeal that they have suffered, but acknowledging that they too are victims would be a start – albeit a small step, but long overdue.

Perjury Under Duress

Mark Grommek, Learnne Vilday and Angela Psaila were sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment for perjury on December 19^th. They are the first witnesses to be convicted of perjury in a miscarriage of justice case, where even the prosecution accepted that their allegations of police malpractice, which included violence and threats of wrongful imprisonment, were true.

The case of the Cardiff Five (Yusef Abdullahi, John and Ronnie Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris) was the first miscarriage of justice n the DNA age in Britain to be resolved by the conviction of the real murderer, Jeffrey Gafoor. The four alleged eyewitnesses – Paul Atkins was deemed unfit to stand trial – were the first to be charged with any offence in that case since Gafoorʼs conviction on July 4^th 2003.

Grommek Vilday and Psaila pleaded guilty to perjury in October. There is no doubt that those witnesses perjured themselves, as they have admitted it and the conviction of Gafoor proved it, but such cases are rare and this is unique in terms of it being accepted that they were mistreated by police.

Grommek gave evidence that he was subjected to threats of violence by a then Detective Inspector Richard Powell, before he gave accounts that falsely implicated Abdullahi and Ronnie Actie,. His claims of police malpractice were accepted by the prosecution – no police officers had been charged over this case, although several remain on bail.

The conviction of Grommek, Psaila and Vilday is controversial. Will they be only witnesses to face trial over a miscarriage of justice case in such circumstances? Vilday was also put under intolerable pressure as was Psaila who believed that her blood had been found in the room when Lynette was murdered until told differently in 2004. She reacted with shock at the news.

Discredited Predecessor

There is no shortage of miscarriage of justice cases, but none of the major cases have resulted in such an investigation let alone convictions. The closest is the case of former Greater Manchester police officer Ged Corley, who was accused of a series of armed robberies. After it became clear that he was on duty at the time some offences occurred, several of Manchesterʼs criminal fraternity were allowed to change their accounts and accuse him of master-minding the robberies instead.

After his convictions were quashed in March 1990 an investigation resulted in perjury convictions, but of the armed robbers who had framed him. The only convictions that were obtained of police officers in that case were because they pleaded guilty to lesser offences, but not perjury or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. That came from one of the biggest investigations that the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), the predecessor of the equally flawed Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) had ever conducted.

Context

Less than two weeks after Corleyʼs convictions were quashed, the Court of Appeal, headed by the discredited then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, freed Alban Turner, but in a manner that left a bad taste. It was clear that crucial witness Kevin Sarbutts had lied. The crucial issues were what lies had he told and why had he told them.

Sarbuttsʼ retraction was referred to the now abolished PCA. The investigation was huge and utterly flawed by design. It did not investigate whether Sarbutts had lied about Turner – just his allegations of police malpractice. Turnerʼs guilt or innocence was crucial, but it was peripheral at best. As such the context was missed and the investigation lacked a crucial focus.

Sarbutts was convicted of perjury in 1994 and sentenced to three years imprisonment after the jury asked for leniency. His claims that he had lied to frame an innocent man were not part of the case against him. The PCA has been replaced, but is the IPCC adequate, especially in dealing with perjury in miscarriage of justice cases?

Anomaly

The Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, has been asked to correct an anomaly that resulted in a brutal murderer receiving a significantly lower tariff than three entirely innocent men. Jeffrey Gafoor pleaded guilty to the Valentine’s Day 1988 murder of 20-year old Lynette White on July 4^th 2003.

Yusef Abdullahi, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris served four years each before their convictions were quashed in December 1992. John and Ronnie Actie were acquitted after two years on remand in November 1990. Gafoor was arrested following advances in forensic science in February 2003.

Sentencing him to life imprisonment Mr Justice (Sir John) Royce told Gafoor: “You allowed innocent men to go to prison for a crime you knew you had committed”, Royce considered this to be the most important aggravating factor. Despite this the law only allowed the judge to set a tariff of thirteen years.

“I think it is outrageous that he got a lower tariff than us”, said Tony Paris. “He was guilty and we were innocent. He let five men get charged for what he did and three get life sentences. And when you consider that at any time one or all of us could have committed suicide while he remained at liberty, I don’t think that this is genuine remorse”.

Just Tariffs

I proposed reforms to encourage real perpetrators to take responsibility for their crimes and prevent miscarriages of justice, because it would be in their interest to own up before they are caught and brought to justice, to the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice. The Law Commission’s response was vacuous, as it believes that the system already caters for this eventuality in setting tariffs, as Royce referred to it in setting the tariff that Gafoor must serve.

But his hands were tied. In that case the aggravating circumstances were that it was a particularly brutal crime and that he had allowed men he knew to be innocent to be convicted of a crime that he knew he had committed and serve a total of sixteen years imprisonment. He thought he could have set a maximum of five years for all of that, but chose to set four years and six months.

And in mitigation he set three years and six months for pleading guilty at the ‘first’ opportunity – a mere fifteen years after he took White’s life – and assisting the ongoing inquiry into what went wrong in the original investigation.

Both aggravating circumstances are extremely serious, but the law as Royce saw it only allowed him to have them outweigh comparatively trivial mitigation by just one year. This is not taking it into account; it is an insult.

Judges should be entitled to impose an appropriate tariff based on the individual circumstances of the case that they are considering. Had Royce imposed the full five years he was entitled to for just the brutality of the crime, it would not have been unreasonable, which makes a complete mockery of the claim that the system already takes vindication into account. And this is far from the only flaw in setting tariffs in cases of vindication.

Ignoring Victims

When setting the tariff that Gafoor must serve Royce took into account “powerful statements” on the effect that her murder had had upon them from Lynette’s family. The Cardiff Five were not invited to detail the effect that wrongful imprisonment had on them. Paris thinks that this is unfair and wants the views of victims of miscarriages of justice to be considered prominently when sentencing people like Gafoor, especially when Royce thought that what had happened to them was the most important aggravating circumstance.

“Our feelings should have been taken into account when the judge set his tariff”, said Mr Paris. “We are victims of Gafoor’s crime as well. The law should have given us the same opportunity as Lynette’s family to say what this case has done to us”.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Justice believes that there is no need for tariff reform, because there are mechanisms to correct miscarriages of justice already. How exactly does treating real perpetrators more leniently than the innocent and preventing judges from setting appropriate tariffs based on the merits of individual cases correct miscarriages of justice, let alone help to prevent them?

Abolished

The late Yusef Abdullahi would not be compensated for his ordeal despite his undoubted innocence if he had been wrongfully convicted now. The Cardiff Three (Abdullahi, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris) were compensated under the Discretionary Scheme which was abolished in 2006.

“The discretionary compensation scheme was abolished on 19 April 2006 by the then Home Secretary and the coalition Government have no plans to reintroduce it”, wrote the Ministry of Justice Minister Baron (Tom) McNally. “We will continue to consider applications for compensation under the statutory scheme, Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which fully meets our international obligations”.

This leaves victims of miscarriages of justice whose convictions are quashed on a first appeal with no option but to sue for compensation. Despite the tragically early death of Mr Abdullahi the government refuses to right that wrong. His vindication by  the conviction of Jeffrey Gafoor made no difference – he still would not qualify and the government sees nothing wrong with that.

Plain Wrong

“Compensation is paid under Section 133 where a conviction is quashed at an out-of-time appeal, or following reference to the appeal court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, on the basis that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice”, Lord (Tom) McNally wrote. “Ministers decide whether an applicant is entitled to compensation under Section 133”.

In other words despite the clearest evidence of innocence possible – vindication by the conviction of the real murderer of Lynette White in the case of the Cardiff Five – it makes no difference as they would not meet the requirements of Section 133. Nor does Colin Stagg.

“For those applicants who are to receive compensation, it is then for an independent assessor to decide how much should be paid, based on claims of loss from the applicant” McNally continued. “It is open to an applicant to make a claim in relation to his or her own Article 8 rights-for example, loss of family life. Section 133 fully meets our international obligations to pay compensation in cases of miscarriages of justice”. In fact, it does not.

Absurd

If the obligations were fully met in such cases by Section 133, why had the Discretionary Scheme been introduced at all? The only logical explanation is that there were grave injustices that were not catered for under the Statutory Scheme and that it did not meet the UK government’s international obligations.

Prior to the introduction of the Discretionary Scheme in 1985 the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (HRC) clearly believed that the Ex Gratia Scheme (Statutory Scheme) did not meet the requirements of Article 14(6) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Britain steadfastly claimed that the Ex Gratia Scheme was enough. The HRC was not convinced.

Article 14(6) says as follows: “When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him”.

Inadequate

Section 133 was plainly inadequate to satisfy those conditions, which became binding when Britain ratified the Covenant including Article 14(6). The wording of Paragraph 5 (a) and (b) of Section 133 are as follows: “In this section ʻreversedʼ shall be construed as referring to a conviction having been quashed— (a) on an appeal out of time; or (b) on a reference”. In other words where the Covenant did not exclude those who had won a first appeal from compensation, but S133 did and still does.

The potential for serious injustice was clear. An obvious example is the Cardiff Five. Without the Discretionary Scheme, they would not have met the requirements of S133, even though there is no doubt reasonable or otherwise about their innocence. Refusing to compensate the demonstrably innocent is unconscionable and plainly in breach of our obligations under Article 14(6).

The only thing that could be worse is forcing the innocent to prove their innocence to beyond reasonable doubt, knowing full well that the criminal justice system does not declare innocence before compensating under S133 as well. Once again Britain is breaching its international obligations to victims of miscarriages of justice.