Guilty until proven innocents why the injustice continues

In light of HOme Secretary Michael Howard's reforms of police conduct Paul Donovan examines the roots and repercussions of such a controversial move.
THIS SICK JOKE" ran the Daily Mail headline juxtaposed with a photograph of Winston Silcott. The Daily Express berated "the liberal establishment that continues to dictate the running in our criminal justice system."
This tabloid outcry followed the award of L10,000 partial compensation to Winston Silcott for the wasted years he spent in prison for a crime he did not commit. Back in 1989 when the Guildford Four walked free from the Court of Appeal, there was a very similar tabloid press outcry.
Following the exoneration of Paul Hill, Gerry Conlon, Patrick Armstrong and Carol Richardson the Daily Express proclaimed that "the process of establishing their innocence took far too long. And those responsible for robbing them of 14 years must be punished." Over the next five years the Guildford Four were followed by the Birmingham Six, Maguire Seven, Judy Ward, Stefan Kisko, the Tottenham Three and most recently the East Ham Two. But the counter attack was already underway.
A whispering campaign against the Guildford Four began almost as soon as they walked out of the Court of Appeal off the record comments made to journalists by undisclosed sources. In March 1991 in the wake of the successful appeal of the Birmingham Six a Royal Commission was set up to examine a Criminal Justice Bill.
The re-election of the Conservative Government in April 1992 brought Kenneth Clarke to the Home Office. Clarke signalled that the damage limitation was now fully underway and in 13 months referred just one case (that of Eddy Browning) to the Court of Appeal. (In a statement made following the release of Judy Ward in May 1992 the Home Office admitted that the cases of more than 800 prisoners claiming innocence were currently under review).
During this period the term miscarriage of justice was gradually being redefined as the guilty walking free. Within this frame of reference the release of the innocent was to be depicted as being "soft" on crime. At a time when a number of news desks were said to be suffixing from miscarriage of justice fatigue journalists failed to communicate the simple point that if the innocent were in prison then the guilty were still walking free.
In April 1993, four years after the release of the Guildford Four, three Surrey detectives charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice were acquitted. The manner in which the trial was conducted set a precedent for future cases. In the Guildford Four detectives case the charge involved the completion of handwritten notes and typed records concerning Patrick Armstrong.
The defence's rationale was that the confession of Armstrong was sound and so the conspiracy charges were irrelevant. Armstrong was not called to appear and what followed became known as the trial of the Guildford Four in absentia. With the detectives acquitted what had previously been whispered could now be bellowed from editorial columns. The Daily Telegraph proclaimed: "The acquittal of the three ex-policemen and some of the new evidence heard in the course of their Old Bailey trial, suggests there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that two of the Guildford Four, Mr Patrick Armstrong and Mr Gerry Conlon, might have been guilty after all." An inside page headline stated "Compensation is not effected."
The Birmingham Six were better prepared for the attempts to soil their reputations. When the trial of the three West Midlands detectives charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice came to trial members of the Six were present throughout. The trial was aborted after three and a half days.
A Royal Commission report sought to shift the burden of proof in favour of the prosecution and against the defence. The defence were to be required to disclose their case in advance to the prosecution and right to trial by jury was to be restricted.
The crucial role that confessions obtained under duress had played in convicting the innocent was not considered a necessary area for "reform".
Over the summer of 1993 debate about the prison system simmered. The new Home Secretary, Michael Howard, felt that the HM prisons were not "austere" enough for the inmates. At the Tory Party Conference in October Howard was able to announce the building of five "decent but austere" new private prisons. The Home Secretary emphasised that "prison should not be a picnic."
The 27 point plan to combat crime that was introduced by Mr Howard at the Tory Party conference was drawn from a combination of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the Northern Ireland armoury of repressive laws.
Whilst detectives have been acquitted and the Criminal Justice Bill has progressed through Parliament Michael Howard has referred just one case to the Court of Appeal under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act. The case, that of Prem Sivalingham and Sam Kulasingaham, was heard before the court of Appeal in May and resulted in the quashing of the two men's murder convictions.
Winston Silcott was not asked to attend court during his trial. Silcott's name could then be slurred, using statements that had already been discredited at the 1991 appeal.
When Winston Silcott was then awarded £10,000 compensation for part of the time he has spent in prison for a crime he did not commit, the tabloids' reaction prompted his solicitor, Adrian Clarke, to say: "Of course, the thinly veiled sub-text in the recent press coverage has been that Silcott was guilty as charged."
The Orwellian subtext of miscarriage of justice debate suggests that the acquittal of the few detectives brought to court can now be regarded as indicative of the guilt of the innocent. The manipulation of the agenda by the legal establishment and the complicity of certain parts of the media has helped smooth the way for the draconian Criminal Justice Bill. The failure of the police to apprehend numerous IRA bombers and the murderers of PC Blakelock has been sidelined.
Speaking at the 1993 Conservative Party conference Michael Howard declared the centuries-old right to silence to be a "charter for terrorists and professional criminals."
In a sample of 16,000 cases examined by the Home Office between 1984 and 1986 three per cent of those accused exercised their right to remain silent.