The Birmingham Six: A Case Study in Miscarriage of Justice

This page delves into the infamous case of the Birmingham Six, one of the most well-known examples of miscarriage of justice in the UK. This case study illustrates the devastating consequences of unsafe convictions and the importance of fair trials.

Background of the Case

On November 21, 1974, two pubs in Birmingham were bombed, resulting in 21 deaths. The attack was believed to have been carried out by the Provisional IRA. In the aftermath, six Irish-born Catholic men living in Birmingham were arrested.

Police Misconduct and Forced Confessions

The treatment of the suspects while in police custody was deeply problematic:

• They were deprived of food and sleep
• Subjected to interrogations lasting up to 12 hours without breaks
• Threatened and beaten
• Subjected to mock executions

Highlight: Four of the men signed confessions under these conditions, violating their rights as suspects and resulting in invalid, forced confessions.

The Trial and Conviction

On May 12, 1975, the six men were charged with murder and conspiracy to cause explosions. Key issues with the trial included:

1. The judge deemed the coerced confessions admissible as evidence, which was a significant error.
2. The prosecution's expert witness, forensic scientist Dr. Frank Skuse, claimed he was 99% sure that two of the men had explosives residue on their hands.
3. The defense's expert witness, Dr. Hugh Black (former Chief Inspector of Explosives for the Home Office), disagreed with Skuse's findings.

Example: Dr. Skuse's evidence was later found to be unreliable as he used an incorrect concentration of solution in the tests for nitro-glycerine traces.

On August 15, 1975, all six men were found guilty and each sentenced to 21 life sentences.

Appeals and Continued Imprisonment

• The initial application for leave to appeal was dismissed in March 1976.
• In 1985, TV programmes began to cast doubt on the convictions.
• Chris Mullin MP's book in 1986 presented a case for their innocence.
• A 1988 appeal, the longest criminal appeal at the time, was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

New Evidence and Eventual Exoneration

Over the following years, journalists and campaigners uncovered new evidence that cast doubt on the safety of the convictions. This led to a new appeal in 1990, where:

• The prosecution didn't offer a case due to fresh evidence of police fabrication.
• Challenges were made to the admissibility of confessions and forensic evidence.
• Evidence of wrongful exclusion of evidence by the trial judge was presented.

Quote: "The case against the Birmingham Six was dismissed as the new evidence proved their innocence."

This case highlights the importance of rigorous investigation, fair trial procedures, and the willingness to review and correct miscarriages of justice in the criminal justice system.

Jury Equity and Just Verdicts

Page three explores the concept of jury equity and its role in achieving just outcomes, even when strictly applying the law might result in unfair verdicts.

Definition: Jury equity occurs when jurors deliberately reject evidence to acquit defendants who technically broke the law, believing the punishment would be unjust.

Example: The 1998 case of Alan Blythe, charged with cannabis cultivation, where the jury acquitted him despite clear evidence due to the circumstances involving his terminally ill wife.

Highlight: This practice allows juries to send messages to lawmakers about unjust laws, historically leading to legal reforms.