Despite this the law only allowed the judge to set a tariff of thirteen years. “I think it is outrageous that he got a lower tariff than us,” said Tony Paris. “He was guilty and we were innocent. He let five men get charged for what he did and three get life sentences. And when you consider that at any time one or all of us could have committed suicide while he remained at liberty, I don’t think that this is genuine remorse.”

I proposed reforms to encourage real perpetrators to take responsibility for their crimes and prevent miscarriages of justice, because it would be in their interest to own up before they are caught and brought to justice, to the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice. The Law Commission’s response was vacuous, as it believes that the system already caters for this eventuality in setting tariffs, as Royce referred to it in setting the tariff that Gafoor must serve, but his hands were tied. I that case the aggravating circumstances were that it was a particularly brutal crime and that he had allowed men he knew to be innocent to be convicted of a crime that he knew he had committed and serve a total of sixteen years imprisonment. He could have set a maximum of five years for all of that, but chose to set four years and six months and in mitigation he set three years and six months for pleading guilty at the ‘first’ opportunity – a mere fifteen years after he took White’s life – and assisting the ongoing inquiry into what went wrong in the original investigation. Both aggravating circumstances are extremely serious, but the law only allowed Royce to have them outweigh comparatively trivial mitigation by just one year. This is not taking it into account; it is an insult. Judges should be entitled to impose an appropriate tariff based on the individual circumstances of the case that they are considering. Had Royce imposed the full five years he was entitled to for just the brutality of the crime, it would not have been unreasonable, which makes a complete mockery of the claim that the system already takes vindication into account. And this is far from the only flaw in setting tariffs in cases of vindication.

When setting the tariff that Gafoor must serve Royce took into account “powerful statements” on the effect that her murder had had upon them from Lynette’s family. The Cardiff Five were not invited to detail the effect that wrongful imprisonment had on them. Paris thinks that this is unfair and wants the views of victims of miscarriages of justice to be considered prominently when sentencing people like Gafoor. “Our feelings should have been taken into account when the judge set his tariff,” said Mr Paris. “We are victims of Gafoor’s crime as well. The law should have given us the same opportunity as Lynette’s family to say what this case has done to us.”

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Justice believes that there is no need for tariff reform, because there are mechanisms to correct miscarriages of justice already. How exactly does treating real perpetrators more leniently than the innocent and preventing judges from setting appropriate tariffs based on the merits of individual cases correct miscarriages of justice, let alone help to prevent them?

© Satish Sekar January 22^nd 2009

More than five years after they were proved innocent beyond any doubt they will probably never recover from their ordeal and depriving them of the opportunity to detail how they too were victimised by Gafoor’s actions adds to it by denying the fact that they are his victims too. Allowing them to give victim statements demonstrates in practice that they have indeed been victimised by his actions and shows that the criminal justice system takes its responsibilities seriously. In this case it has already been proved that they were the victims of crime, as perjured testimony contributed to their wrongful convictions, but where is the support for them? As victims of crime are they not entitled to the assistance provided to others by organisations such as Victim Support? And if not, why not?

They are clearly victims as well and should be treated as such, so the criminal justice system should acknowledge this and allow the victims of such miscarriages of justice the right to be heard. The law can be amended easily to allow vindicated victims like the Cardiff Five to give victim statements as well. It is surely not too much to ask that they be given the same courtesy that is afforded to the family of the victim of the murder. Other miscarriages of justice have been resolved in this manner now, but tariffs or sentences have been imposed without acknowledging the status of those who suffered the miscarriage of justice as victims deserving the right to voice their concerns. It was already too late for Stefan Kiszko who died without seeing Ronald Castree convicted of the murder of Lesley Molseed, but Colin Stagg and the original defendants in the Damilola Taylor Inquiry were and alive when Robert Napper was brought to account for the killing of Rachel Nickell and the four boys who originally stood trial for the murder of Damilola Taylor when the Preddie brothers (Ricky and Danny) were finally brought to justice.

It is difficult to imagine a more disgraceful way to treat all of the victims of such cases and it is inevitable that there will be other cases that are resolved in this manner in the future. Without all the victims of these cases being given a voice further injustice will occur. Why should the victims of such miscarriages of justice be denied the right to make victim statements? If victims are to be truly put at the heart of the criminal justice system then all the victims of cases such as this must be given a voice. It cannot roll back the years or spare them the ordeal that they have suffered, but acknowledging that they too are victims would be a start – albeit a small step and long overdue.