Normalizing Injustice: The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice

Abstract

The report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (Runciman Commission) is a sham. It is a document that is slip-shod in its use of empirical evidence, slippery in its argumentation, and shameful in its underlying political purposes. The Runciman Commission was established in 1991 as a direct response to the release by the Court of Appeal of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six from long terms of false imprisonment, following the overturning of their convictions for terrorist bombings in the 1970s. This followed the rejection of several earlier appeals from both groups of defendants. Even while the Commission was sitting, numerous other miscarriages of justice were brought to light. Some of these the Maguires, Judith Ward also related to terrorist offences in the 1970s. But many others Stefan Kiszko, the Tottenham Three, the Cardiff Three, the Darvell Brothers, the Taylor Sisters, Ivan Fergus, and numerous individuals falsely convicted as the result of misconduct by the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad and by a group of Metropolitan Police officers based at Stoke Newington police station in North London were not terrorist-related. Moreover, the original convictions in several of these cases post-dated the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and thereby called into question the 'reforms' of police practice and procedures that legislation entailed. In announcing the Royal Commission on the day that the Birmingham Six were released, the then Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker, said that its 'aim ... will be to minimise so far as possible the likelihood of such events happening again', even while its review would 'embrace all stages of the criminal process' and extend 'over the work of the criminal courts in England and Wales.