The Gazette 1991

a p r i l 1991

g a z e t t e

INCORPORATED LAWSOCtEif ELAND Vol. 85 No. 3 April 1991

In this Issue

Viewpoint Miscarriages of Justice What have we learned

Viewpoint

99

tions of that case for our system. That Committee reported, w i th commendable speed, in March, 1990. We have heard very little since. We still have no means of judicially reopening a conviction here - in similar circumstances - even where there is new evidence. More recently, public concern has been voiced f o l l ow i ng judicial remarks (in the context of the dis- missal of a murder charge against a young person) querying in a critical way an apparent conflict of evidence of the circumstances surrounding the making of an inculpatory state- ment by the accused. It may be recalled, that, during the course of its passage through the Oireachtas, the Bill, which became the Criminal Justice Act 1984, was amended to insert a provision which, the then Minister for Justice promised, was intended to facilitate the introduction of the tape recording or video re- cording of the interrogation of suspects in police custody. The Minister said, at the time, that he had set up a Committee (another Committee ?) to examine this. May we ask what became of this promise made all of eight years ago now? We would ask whether it is not abundantly clear by now that it is highly unsatisfactory to expect juries to determine issues of guilt or innocence in cases involving serious offences when the main - or only - plank of evidence is a disputed confession and the dispute centres on the manner in which the alleged confession was taken from the accused person in police custody. Given the availability and compara- tive low cost of audio/video record- ing equipment nowadays, there is little excuse for this. Independent verification of what exactly was said by an accused person in a statement and the circumstances surrounding the taking of the state- ment by the police must be available to the court, in the interests of both defence and prosecution. (Contd. on p. 104)

Agreement to waive set off - an unfortunate difference of opinion

from

Guildford and Birmingham? Everyone who truly cherishes the fundamental core values of our legal system - respect for justice and the rule of law. - will rejoice at the collapse of the case against the Birmingham Six and their long - delayed release by the English Court of Appeal, just eighteen months after the release, in similar circumstances, by the same Court of the Guildford Four. We extend to the Birmingham Six our congratulations at their final vindication and, in doing so, we salute all those, including, in particular, the principal defence solicitor involved Ms. Gareth Peirce, who have worked so tirelessly on their behalf. Seventeen years was far too long but, then, conspiracies to pervert the course of justice are not easy to break down and this, of course, was no ordinary conspiracy. It was, by any of the normal standards against which we judge matters of this kind, an extra- ordinary case - a unique coming together in one remarkable time- frame of a series of incidents, facts, circumstances and people which, on the surface and at the time, gave the case a plausibility that was always going to be difficult to shake. The "appalling vista", from which Lord Denning so publicly recoiled, has now come to pass. As we write, those charged w i th responsibility for the police and the main elements of the courts system in England have begun another re- examination to see what further lessons can be learned. A Royal Commission is to sit. It is not unreasonable to ask what we, in this country, have ourselves learned from these t wo tragic occurrences. Soon after the Guildford Four were released, the Gove r nment appointed Circuit Judge Frank Martin to head a committee to examine the implica-

101 105 107

m the President

J^arábrief Ptaétice Notes Solicjtc ^ f f e < J ^ H h g e r Members News 115 People and Places 116 liqitor's Duties under CAT Amnesty 1 1 1 1 1 2 Mandatory Liability Fund - / A n American Experience 124 Regulation of Insurance Intermediaries 125 ook Reviews 129 Professional Information 133 Witbo ut prejudice or ithout effect? 119 Executive Editor: Mary Gaynor Committee: Eamonn G. Hall, Chairman Michael V. O'Mahony, Vice-Chairman Advertising: Seán Ó hOisín. Telephone: 305236 Fax: 307860 Printing: Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford. The views expressed in this publication, save where otherwise indicated, are the views of the contributors and not necessarily the views of the Council of the Society. The appearance of an advertisement in this publication does not necessarily indicate approval by the Society for the product or service advertised. Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7. Tel.: 710711. Telex: 31219. Fax: 710704. John F. Buckley Patrick McMahon

99