Stephen Miller's original solicitor Graham Dobson arranged for a local solicitor Geraint Richards to represent him during the interviews in Cardiff. Richards' performance caused serious problems as he repeatedly failed to intervene while Miller was bullied and cajoled by officers into saying what they wanted to hear. Richards should have put a stop to it – even he later admitted that he should have intervened more often – and on the few occasions that he tried his attempts were fobbed off by officers keen to exploit their advantage.

Miller's breakdown was audible and distressing, as he confessed to committing a brutal crime there is no doubt that he had no part in. During Mark Grommek's recent perjury trial, Miller was finally allowed to tell his story as it should have been told. He said that police were not interested in hearing about his innocence and wore him down until he told them what they wanted to hear, despite knowing for certain that he was innocent.

*****

After failing Miller, Richards began to try to make amends. He acknowledged that he should have intervened more often and he advised Dobson that he thought Miller was suggestible. Dobson acted on his suggestion and commissioned the leading experts in the field Dr Gisli Gudjonsson and his colleague Dr James MacKeith. Gudjonsson examined Miller and concluded that he had a low intelligence quotient and that he was abnormally suggestible. MacKeith made a telling contribution too. Miller was suggestible, so why didn't he confess when first questioned in February 1988? The answer lies in the combination of grief and anger that allowed him to assert himself at that time and he was not not interviewed as aggressively then. His failure to confess then does not mean that he was not vulnerable; he was, but there were reasons explained by MacKeith, but never to the jury that resulted in Miller not confessing when first questioned by police. Having researched Miller's vulnerabilities well Dobson put Miller's fate in the hands of Anthony Evans QC.

During the first trial Evans argued forcefully that Miller had been bullied into making that confession contrary to Section 76 of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act, but the late Mr Justice McNeill wrongly ruled that Miller had not been oppressed. It had dire consequences, as Evans was unavailable for the second trial and Roger Frisby QC chose not to argue that Miller had been bullied. Frisby failed to defend Miller to the high standard his client had a right to expect and that played a part in the securing the wrongful convictions of Yusef Abdulahi and Tony Paris as well as Stephen Miller.

by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (December 28th 2008)