??/06/93 - We help bang' em up Now help get' em out

LAST YEAR sisters Michelle and Lisa Taylor were convicted of the brutal murder of Alison Shaughnessy. It was a story that captured the imagination of the media, especially the tabloids, who found a sexy story in the height of the silly season and went to town on it.

The Crown's case was covered in intimate detail, because Michelle had had an 'affair with Alison's husband, John. She was alleged to have written a diary of hate, but it contained nothing out of the ordinary for a jilted lover. The reporting of a serious case in such a frivolous manner had two main consequences.

It ruined the lives of two young women and it allowed a very serious issues to pass without comment. Evidence has emerged to show that both women were innocent of the crime. The case against them has begun to unravel, but very serious causes for concern remained unreported.

One is that their case was the first in which a fingerprint had been "dated" in a court in Britain. The expert refused to sign a statement to that effect and quickly retracted it, but by then the damage had been done. The implications of this are awesome: It meant that if you had ever been in a place where a crime was subsequently committed and you lied about ever having been there you could be convicted.

Another issue is the relatively new technique of "frame grabbing". A video of the Shaughnessys' wedding came into the hands of the Daily Mirror, which grabbed a frame of Michelle Taylor apparently giving the bridegroom an intimate kiss. In fact the video, when played, shows it was a very brief and formal peck on the cheek.

And this was during the trial. The police spread misinformation in their briefings to the press. For example, they described Lisa as being "like an IRA terrorist" because she took the right to silence on legal advice. The behaviour of the press is likely to come in for scrutiny when their appeals are heard later this year.

"The press have a lot to answer for," says Ann Taylor (Michelle and Lisa's mother). The case is set to test the relationship between the media and the law.

Not surprisingly the Taylors want legislation to curb the excesses of the press. However, where journalists helped to convict the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Tottenham Three, Winchester Three, Cardiff Three and countless others, it was the tireless work of investigative journalists which exposed these travesties of justice in tandem with campaigners.

The Taylor family have the support of several journalists. Duncan Campbell, crime correspondent of the Guardian, points out that there isn't the same interest in miscarriages of justice as there was when the Guildford Four were finally vindicated. Newsdesks feel miscarriages of justice are old news.

The Guardian has run a series called justice OnTrial, which highlighted several miscarriages of justice, including the Cardiff Three who were exonerated last December. "We get hundreds of letters a year from prisoners and we simply can't investigate all of these cases as thoroughly as they deserve.

Journalists can't act as a court of last resort. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice is likely to recommend that an independent review body be established to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice," says Duncan Campbell. He also praised the work of TV programmes like Rough Justice. "But for every case that they highlight there are another twelve that they can't."

It was a concern high on the agenda of Steve Haywood, former producer of Rough Justice who left for Channel 4 last year, along with Steve Phelps and David Jessel, to make a similar series called Trial and Error. At a time when Lord Denning, former Master of the Rolls, said "British justice is in ruins", there was no increase in the BBC's output of programmes.

Charles Hunter, the new producer of Rough justice pledged to continue its high standards. He would like to make more programmes but recognises that the demands of television do not permit that. "Rough Justice's standards have to be even higher than defence lawyers.

We cannot afford to make a mistake, because we know that we have to convince our viewers as well as the Home Office and the Court of Appeal," says Hunter. "Even though there has been a change in climate in the Court of Appeal from Lord Lane to Lord Taylor we know that they are watching us carefully.

We cannot hide anything and where lawyers have plenty of time to convince twelve jurors of their innocence we have forty minutes to convince a few million." Rough Justice and Trial and Error can only make a maximum of three programmes per year. Both programmes get several letters a week.

While neither Charles Hunter, Steve Haywood or Duncan Campbell believe that they should be seen as a court of last resort, they often represent the last hope for those wrongfully convicted and despite their wishes journalists often are the last resort for the victims of miscarriages of justice.

The National Association of Probation Officers estimates that there are at least 700 victims of miscarriages of justice in British prisons. Although programmes like First Tuesday, Panorama, Black Bag and Dispatches may screen one or two programmes in each run, it is still a drop in the ocean and they are only interested in the high profile cases.

The vast majority of miscarriages of justice are not high profile cases. This makes for competition between prisoners to get their plight aired, in circumstances where investigative journalists cannot help them all. Nothing breeds hope faster than success, but few journalists can afford to specialise in the way that investigating such abuses demands.

Those that do are overstretched and overworked and have to make difficult decisions on which cases to prioritise. Before the release of the Guildford Four, specialists in the field were accustomed to banging their heads against brick walls. The problems are quite different now. They have to deal with a vast increase in prisoners seeking help.

Both Rough Justice and Trial and Error have tough criteria before they will decide to screen a case. They must be able to prove innocence and they must be able to discover enough new evidence to give the prisoner a realistic chance of exoneration on appeal.

It explains their high success rate, but it allows several people who should not have been convicted to slip through the net. For example, a killing in self defence or domestic violence could not meet those criteria. Perhaps the euphoria that surrounded the overturning of high profile miscarriages of justice has subsided.

There are no equivalent cases to the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Tottenham Three any more. Not all specialists are pessimistic. Steve Haywood believes that things are a lot better than they were and that journalists are far more sensitive to miscarriages of justice.

"For those of us who have been involved for many years it is encouraging that attention is now being given to points which we have complained of incessantly," he says Haywood. "Miscarriages of justice have been flavour of the month, but there is still a tendency by journalists to concentrate their efforts on the high profile political cases rather than the day to day miscarriages which are the most reprehensible part of our system."

Despite his views there is a clear danger that "miscarriage of justice fatigue" has already set in. Journalists are waiting for the Royal Commission to solve the problems and then the law can get back to business as usual. Meanwhile the victims of our justice system will continue to suffer and hope that someone somewhere will take an interest in their plight.

Isn't it about time that we faced up to our responsibilities and stopped allowing ourselves to be used to ruin innocent lives?