Feature: The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure
01 January 1991
Feature: The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure
artdoc August=1993
How are we to make sense of the report of Royal Commission on
Criminal Procedure published in July? (1) The Commission was
set up in the wake of the release of the Guildford 4 and the
Birmingham 6 from long terms of imprisonment, following the
overturning of their convictions for terrorist bombings in the
early 1970s and various unsuccessful appeals. Even while the
Commission was sitting, the line of miscarriages of justice cases
grew longer and longer - the MacGuire 4, Judith Ward, Stefan
Kiszko, the Tottenham 3, the Cardiff 3, the Taylor Sisters, Ivan
Fergus, plus numerous others falsely convicted as the result of
misconduct by the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad and
Metropolitan Police officers based at Stoke Newington police
station in North London.
The original convictions in a number of these latter cases
post-dated the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which
itself had emerged out of the Royal Commission on Criminal
Procedure just over a decade ago. They therefore cast significant
doubt on the `reforms' of police practices and procedures
represented by PACE. More generally, the miscarriage of justice
cases had done much to undermine the political consensus over
policing that had begun to emerge between the main political
parties in Britain from the mid-1980s onwards and opened up the
possibility for a more serious challenge to what has been termed
the `liberal bureaucratic' ethos that has dominated the British
criminal justice system since the 1960s (2).
The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice appears to have
carried out no analysis of the miscarriage of justice cases, and
it firmly turns its back on any fundamental questioning of the
criminal justice system. From the beginning of its report it
rejects broad-based, theoretical approaches to reform in favour
of what it claims to be `practical considerations'. More
significantly, the Commission quickly concludes that `the effect
of PACE and of Code C (on detention and treatment of suspects in
police custody) has been beneficial' and that there has been
`general compliance' with their provisions.
Increasing police powers
Much of the Commission's consideration of police investigations
and conduct is in a similar vein, directed toward extending the
scope of their powers and activities. The Commission acknowledges
the risks of the police conducting interviews with suspects
outside the formal confines of the police station and the rules
of PACE. But it specifically rejects making such evidence non-
admissible in court on the grounds of the unsupported contention
that `spontaneous remarks uttered on arrest are often the most
truthful' and because such `confessions' and the convictions
based on them `might be lost'. Instead, on-the-street and back-
of-police-car confessions are to be legitimised and formalised
by extending the PACE codes. The Commission also `strongly
support' wider use of video surveillance in public places without
even a passing mention of the civil liberties implications this
entails.
Under the Commission's recommendations, the suspect at the
police station will be at risk of forcible searches of their
mouths and the taking of non-intimate samples in a wider range
of offences. The taking of samples for DNA purposes will be
allowed from all suspects arrested in relation to `serious
criminal offences', whether or not DNA evidence is relevant to
the particular offence, and the DNA sample will be retained upon
any conviction. The police would also be empowered for the first
time to continue their questioning of suspects beyond being
charged. This latter recommendation is put forward despite the
evidence that solicitors often fail to adequately attend or
assist suspects even for pre-charge interrogations and the proven
risks that extended questioning will significantly increase
pressures on suspects to make<