Stephen Miller's defence lawyers had a difficult decision to make. Anthony Evans had argued that Miller had been bullied and oppressed and he had done it well, but to no avail. Mr Justice McNeill had heard both Evans' submissions and the shameful hectoring of Miller on tape. Nevertheless, he concluded that Miller had not been oppressed. This is a point of vital importance as it means that a senior judge did not know the law and the decision to quash the convictions of the Cardiff Three served another agenda as well, but that is for another article. McNeill's decision was disgraceful. The same tapes that horrified the appeal judges were admissible and properly obtained according to him, yet his role in perpetuating an outrageous miscarriage of justice has never been subjected to the scrutiny it deserved. McNeill failed to interpret the law correctly – his function in the trial. It is something the judiciary should be ashamed of, yet nobody has ever taken responsibility for it.

McNeill's decision on the admissibility of Miller's confession beggared belief. It sent an appalling message to lawyers and police alike, telling them that it was perfectly acceptable to interview suspects in an aggressive fashion. It was not even interviews, it was a verbal onslaught where officers bullied a highly vulnerable young man into saying what they wanted – a pack of lies that protected the real murderer from justice for several years. Geraint Richard had failed Miller during that verbal barrage that masqueraded as interviews. He at least recognised that he had failed his client and tried to make amends. He noticed signs of suggestibility in Miller and advised Graham Dobson to research it. He did, but this raises other important issues.

Richards recognised the signs of suggestibility, so why did five experienced police officers fail to notice it? Why did Hywel Hughes fail to notice it? Did he even bother to listen to the interviews in full, knowing that the admissibility of the confession would be a critical issue in the case? If not why not? But if he listened to them it is even worse as that would mean that he believed that interviewing suspects in that disgraceful manner is acceptable, that it is not oppressive and that Miller was not suggestible. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is obliged to ensure that only admissible evidence that had been lawfully obtained is put before a jury and the judge is obliged to rule on such applications. Any competent judge should have left the CPS in no doubt that the way Miller's confession was obtained was absolutely unacceptable and would not be tolerated.

Sir David McNeill failed miserably to enforce the law properly. It was his duty in law to rule Miller's confession inadmissible once Hywel Hughes and the CPS had failed in their duty not to rely on such tainted evidence, and this is not a hindsight argument. It should have been obvious that Miller's admissions had been improperly obtained and that if officers believed that such methods were acceptable, then they were wholly wrong. Just listening to the tape-recorded interviews should have been enough, yet several professionals failed to perform their duties to the minimum standard of competency that society has a right to expect and demand. The fact that these wretched interviews were ever put before a court should be a source of great embarrassment and shame throughout the criminal justice system. If something as obvious as this can slip through all the safety nets in a high profile case like this, imagine what goes in courts the length and breadth of the land without the full glare of publicity to protect the vulnerable.

by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (December 29th 2008)