Miscarriages of Justice, the Guildford Four and Innocence Network UK

In October 1975 Paul Hill, Gerald Conlon, Patrick Armstrong and Carole Richardson were convicted of murder and other charges and given life sentences. It would be 15 years before the convictions were successfully appealed and their innocence admitted.

For our final year project, instead of a standard dissertation, journalism students in my year at Winchester university will be starting an Innocence Project. We will be taking on cases like the Guildford Four in an attempt to find new evidence that might help the accused win an appeal.



The Guildford Four were tried and convicted of two pub bombings in a time of political tension surrounding Ireland and the IRA. The conviction remained upheld despite new evidence coming forward. A witness provided an alibi for Carole Richardson that was collaborated by photographic evidence, but the prosecution developed a dubious possible sequence of events by which Richardson could have been traveled at high speed across town to still commit the bombing. Soon after, four confirmed IRA members were caught and convicted for other bombings but confessed to the Guildford bombings too. This too was dismissed as a conspiracy to release the Guildford Four. It finally took evidence that the police had doctored notes used in court to cause the judges to rethink the case.

Along with the case of the Birmingham Six it was a shocking reminder to the public that our criminal justice system is fallible. It also raised many questions about police procedure and put doubts in many minds as to the honesty and integrity of the police service in the 1970's. There were accusations that the police used beatings, intimidation and threats against family and friends to illicit confessions from the accused. These confessions were central to the prosecution's cases and in the Guildford Four trial was essentially the entire case after the other evidence was called into question.

If these convictions were wrong, how many other people could be falsely imprisoned right now?

It was because these high profile court rulings were quashed that the government created the CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission), an organisation with the intention of reviewing cases with possible grounds to appeal. According to the CCRC's website as of 30th September 2009 they have received 12109 applications. 398 of these made it to court and 116 were upheld. This means that under 1% of applications result in a successful appeal.

There are two possible reasons for this. Firstly, the system works. Our prosecution system is strong and we get the right people convicted of the right crimes, there are just a tiny number of cases that fall through the cracks and those people are saved from wrongful imprisonment by the appeals process. Or secondly, mistakes are being made and the process for rectifying them is flawed. Obviously the first option is infinity more appealing and probably much more likely, but without constant checking and questioning we can't be certain this is the case. The Innocence Network UK and student innocence projects are other checks we can use.

INUK was started in September 2004 by Dr Michael Naughton and was inspired by a similar project that proved successful in America. Naughton teaches criminal law at the university of Bristol and specialises in miscarriages of justice. He started the first dedicated innocence project in the UK.

The students in my year will split into small groups of three or four and be assigned cases that meet certain criteria. The person we will be working with will have received a life sentence, effectively meaning they were convicted of either murder or rape. Our job will be to test the strength of that conviction. This will be real opportunity to do some investigative journalism.

When given a life imprisonment, usually parole is only granted once the individual admits their guilt. If the chance occurs and they still maintain their innocence then that person is either a dedicated (and foolish) liar or they genuinely believe their own innocence, choosing to remain imprisoned purely on principle. It is these cases we will be especially interested in.

This promises to be an extremely exciting project and I can't wait to get started.