Confessions are the cornerstone of the criminal justice system of England and Wales, but there are dangers associated with using them, especially if they are relied on uncritically. False confessions are worse than useless, because over-reliance on them has resulted in demonstrably false confessions trumping indisputable evidence that proves them false, such as compelling alibis or the lack of scientific evidence in circumstances where such evidence would have been obtained had the confession been true.

Over twenty years ago Stephen Miller was bullied and hectored into sacrificing his future and, as it turned out, those of two of his co-accused for a crime that he must have known he did not commit (there is no doubt that they were all innocent as the real murderer, Jeffrey Gafoor, pleaded guilty and admitted that he acted alone over five years ago, but it was fifteen years too late). In 1990 Miller's false confession dominated the case, which was not surprising, but it was shocking and indeed shameful that this occurred in an era where safeguards had been introduced that were supposed to protect vulnerable suspects like him, especially the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). So how did it happen? How could a person who was clearly innocent be persuaded to accept responsibility for a crime he did not commit and how could a supposedly competent criminal justice system allow a demonstrably false confession to over-ride all the evidence that proved innocence?

To understand why Miller would sign away his life for something that he knew that he was innocent of, it is necessary not only to understand what made him tick, but why inducing him to confess was so important to the whole of the criminal justice system. Miller was an extremely vulnerable young man for a number of reasons. He had an intelligence quotient that was equivalent to that of an eleven-year-old child and was abnormally suggestible too. He also had the misfortune to fit into that criteria when his vulnerabilities were still not fully understood, let alone catered for. He was an outsider in Cardiff that never fitted in anywhere in the Welsh capital (a city he refuses to return to because of his experiences in this case). Miller also lived off the immoral earnings of the woman he claimed to love, so there was no shortage of people willing to give police the picture of him that they wanted to hear. But there was a side of Miller that the jury should have heard about – something Miller had tried to say for twenty years, but few if any listened.

*****

When Lynette White's mutilated body was discovered late on Valentine's Day 1988. Miller was one of the people police turned to for information. He pestered everybody he knew and several he didn't for information to give to the police, but he ran into problems – nobody wanted to help, or like him they knew nothing important about the murder. Nobody knew it then, but this was a crime that could not be solved at that time – it would take fifteen years to prove why. Miller stayed in Cardiff for three months trying to solve the murder of his girlfriend, but eventually gave up. In that time no-one tried harder than Miler to solve this terrible crime. He left contact details with the police before leaving and asked to be kept informed, but rather than hear about this the jury were given a picture of Miller that was inaccurate.

They were assured that Miller put the woman he claimed to love on the streets – he didn't. They were told that he was her pimp and that he would beat her up if she returned without enough to pay for his liking of cocaine, yet there was no actual evidence to support tales of his violence against her and her earnings paid for both of their use of cocaine. Although he denies being her pimp Miller was a ponce at the very least and he had an easy life that he grew to like, but there was no actual evidence to support the picture that was painted of him as an unfeeling brute who viewed Lynette as nothing more than his meal-ticket, but this was an essential part of getting the confession to stick. Miller was not an angel, but he was not a monster either – he was something in between and Miller's defence failed to correct the inaccurate picture that was painted of him. His solicitor arranged legal representation for him in Cardiff, but Geraint Richards was worse than useless. He failed to defend Miller's interests in circumstances where Miller was incapable through no fault of his own of doing it himself. Richards' feeble attempts to intervene were fobbed off and he failed to do his job. Instead he allowed his client to be bullied disgracefully into confessing to a crime that he was entirely innocent of, but as far as the law was concerned Miller's legal rights had been protected. Before the jury heard a word from Miller about how his confession had been obtained and how he had been treated they already disliked him. So what if the police had been a heavy-handed with him – he deserved it as far as they were concerned. And to make matters worse they didn't get to hear how the manifestly false confession had been extracted at all.

by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (December 2nd 2008)