| The law allows the families of victims the right to give victim statements about how her murder had affected them to judges before the tariff – the minimum that must be served before an offender is eligible to apply for release on parole – is set. Lynette White’s family did so before Mr Justice Royce imposed the tariff on Jeffrey Gafoor. Royce referred to them in his explanation of the tariff and described them as powerful, but despite being victims of Gafoor: the criminal justice system and criminal actions during the investigation, the Cardiff Five (Yusef Abullahi, John and Ronnie Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris) were given no input at all. Surely they deserved that small courtesy that could assist in understanding the full effect of Gafoor’s crimes, especially as it is not even a criminal offence to knowingly allow innocent people to suffer wrongful imprisonment for his crime, but shouldn’t it be? 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.
|