There are thirteen criteria on sufficiency of evidence that Crown Prosecutors had to keep in mind when deciding whether a suspect should be prosecuted at that time, which are thoroughly rehearsed in my book with reference to this case – three did not apply and the other ten should have rung alarm bells. The CPS had an ongoing discretion to review the decision in the light of events even after deciding to prosecute beginning with the committal hearing, which was an old-style one that involved live evidence from the four main witnesses who either put the Cardiff Five at the crime scene or directly accused them of committing the murder. Learnne Vilday, Angela Psaila, Mark Grommek and Paul Atkins contradicted themselves, each other and irrefutable scientific evidence irreconcilably, but the magistrate committed the case for trial and instead of reviewing whether the case was appropriate for trial, both the police and CPS prepared for the first trial by trying to paper over the cracks that were becoming chasms. If the CPS reviewed the evidence again with reference to the Code for Crown Prosecutors, it reached the wrong conclusion – one that defied logic and the evidence, but the unexpected death of Mr Justice McNeill in February 1990 gave the CPS another chance to review the evidence – not only of those witnesses, but of all of them – and halt a prosecution that by now should have been clear was not justified by the evidence.

There are several examples of cases that should not have been brought and even some that should have been prosecuted, but both affect the claims of the CPS to be independent of the police. It has take to take responsibility for all decisions regarding whether to prosecute or not and it will be judged by its failures, especially the high profile ones. If success is measured by results then its handling of the Rolan Adams case will be seen as a success, even though serious flaws have been identified, because it secured convictions, but is it a success. Richard Adams feels betrayed by a system that should have protected his interests and brought Nathan into conflict with the system as well, because police and CPS were determined to deny the racist motivation of that crime. Brian Moore remains convicted of violent disorder while the man who organised the attack on him and his friends isn't because the police and CPS undermined witnesses by prosecuting them, while ignoring laws that demanded the prosecution of the attackers. The CPS has never explained how and why it came to make these seemingly inexplicable decisions, but what about cases that have been proven to be miscarriages of justice?

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was established in 1986, because under the previous system the police decided if people they had arrested would be prosecuted as well. The Prosecution of Offenders Act (1985) was supposed to remedy that as the CPS was supposed to ensure that decisions on whether to prosecute or not were independent of the police. Its first Code for Crown Prosecutors included criteria on sufficiency of evidence and whether it was in the public interest to prosecute, but how effective was the CPS as a safeguard? The Code offered a mechanism to prevent inappropriate prosecutions from coming to trial, but it was entirely dependent on the police for its information, so how independent could it be in practice? It had the power to demand that police conduct further investigations and it could decide not to prosecute, yet the CPS struggled to establish its independence. It didn't always decide to prosecute and undoubtedly some cases that should have come to trial didn't, because Crown Prosecutors were encouraged to look for other options to save money. Somewhat unfairly, the CPS was dubbed the 'Criminal Protection Service' by some police officers outraged by the failure to prosecute cases they thought worthy, and on the side defence lawyers in particular pointed to cases that were prosecuted even though the evidence strongly suggested that the charges were unjustified. There are even examples of both occurring in the same case.

 Article from The Voice can be found here, or please read below

Wrongly jailed for murder: 'Cardiff Three' are finally seeing real justice carried out.

Last month Mark Grommek, 50, made legal history.

He was the first person to be found guilty of perjury in a miscarriage of justice case where both the prosecution and defence agreed that his accusations of police malpractice were true.

Almost twenty years ago The Voice was the first newspaper to report on the wrongful convictions of Yusef Abdullahi, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris – the Cardiff Three.

They had been found guilty of the horrific murder of Lynette White, 20, that occurred in a run down flat in Butetown, Cardiff in the early hours of Valentine's Day 1988.

The longest murder trial in British history resulted in the wrongful convictions of the Cardiff Three in November 1990. The cousins John and Ronnie Actie were acquitted.

All five were innocent. Five years ago history was made in Cardiff Crown Court when Jeffrey Gafoor, now 43, pleaded guilty to the murder of Lynette White. It was the first time in Britain that a miscarriage of justice had been resolved in with the conviction of the real murderer.