Opening a debate on miscarriages of justice in the House of Commons, Willie Rennie calls on the government to accept moral responsibility

[This article is based on a speech opened by Willie Rennie in Westminster Hall on Miscarriages of Justice.]

I was inspired to seek this debate following the disappointing response that I received from the Prime Minister during Question Time a few weeks ago. In a moment, I shall explain why I believe that it was disappointing and why I believe that the government have a moral duty to introduce a step change in the support provided to such victims of state action.

I understand that the responsibility for miscarriage of justice victims in Scotland lies primarily with the Scottish Executive, and I shall also take the issue up directly with them. However, I am raising the issue in this Chamber because I believe that the situation in the rest of the UK is equally unacceptable and that there should probably be joint action between the devolved Administrations of the UK and the UK government.

Victims of miscarriages of justice are victims; just because they are victims of the state does not make them any less so. Yet the state and the public often consider them, at least in private, still guilty: “No smoke without fire,” is often said. Why do we have such faith in the justice system when it finds people guilty, but not when it finds them innocent? Those are the fundamentals that result in the innocent being dumped in the street after years of state incarceration - no apology, little support and years upon years before they receive compensation.

Baroness Kennedy, who sits on the government Benches in another place, described the situation as a “national disgrace”. Adrian Grounds, senior lecturer in forensic psychiatry at Cambridge University’s institute of criminology, is an authority on this issue. He has found that the wrongly convicted and their families commonly face psychological difficulties and problems of adjustment that are severe, bewildering and unexpected. For years, the wrongly convicted fight for freedom, but when it comes they are ill prepared. The outside world does not stop going round the sun while they are in prison. Parents, relatives and friends die - children grow up, people move on. To us, that sense of loss is often subtle, but to them it is shattering.

Victims often find it difficult to cope with day-to-day tasks such as sharing a home, shopping and even crossing the road. They feel stigmatised by neighbours and police. Even though they have been released, they are often regarded with suspicion. They feel bitterness at the fact that those who originally condemned them are now their neighbours. Their families feel it too; they become accustomed to the battle to release their loved ones, but after years without them they find it difficult to adjust to having them back in what has become their own home. The emotional experience of release is too much for many families - in fact, it is overwhelming. The families and victims feel that they are strangers to one another.

Adrian Grounds’s study of the victims of miscarriages of justice found that psychiatric and psychological problems were common among them. Many of the wrongly convicted were described by friends and families as changed in personality. They became more withdrawn, mistrustful and estranged, and difficult to live with. Some had post-traumatic stress disorder, with symptoms such as nightmares and anxiety attacks relating to their prison experiences. Long-standing depression was common among them, and some used alcohol or drugs to try to reduce their feelings of distress.

Often the enormity of their personal losses was impossible to face and bear. In addition, some were consumed by anger and bitterness because it was impossible to accept the legitimacy of what had happened. There had usually been no apology, and those at fault in the prosecution had not been brought to justice. Dr. Grounds has examined Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four and four members of the Birmingham Six. He found that they were suffering from persistent and disabling post-traumatic stress syndromes. They had irreversibly changed, and their difficulties in coping were similar to those described in clinical studies of war veterans. I am grateful for the work of Dr. Grounds and others; they have provided a great service to such victims - and also to the country, as it seeks an appropriate form of justice and support.

What form of support should be provided? I have four suggestions. First, before victims are released, they need information about the typical emotional and practical problems that can arise and about sources of advice and support.

Secondly, we need to set up a retreat, which victims could immediately access on release to give them time to acclimatise, obtain practical and professional help, and make arrangements for housing, health care and benefits.

Thirdly, in the medium to long term the victims need ongoing support. Most professionals working in mental health services have little or no experience of work with wrongly convicted people and may therefore have difficulty in recognising and properly appreciating their complex problems.

We need a UK-wide network of psychiatric specialists who are able to focus on the needs of that small but significant group of people. Such specialists must be fully funded and connected with local health and mental health professionals so that their service can be easily accessed. I suppose that it would be a bit like a managed clinical network, but it would need adequate funding to ensure that no barriers were put in the way of providing the service to victims, and that it did not rely only on the good will of those health professionals.

Fourthly, we need support for the families of the victims, as they often end up supporting many of the victims and having to cope with the new circumstance. In many ways, they will be the carers. They will need support to develop coping and caring mechanisms.

At this point, I want to praise the work of MOJO (Miscarriages of Justice Organisation) and MOJO Scotland. They are passionate and caring. MOJO Scotland receives about £50,000 a year from the Scottish Executive to establish a helpline. I acknowledge that the Home Office also funds a small service run by the royal courts of justice citizens advice bureau in London to provide initial help and advice about housing and benefits after release. That is very welcome, but it is simply insufficient. The UK government and the devolved Administrations should be joining forces to fund a retreat. The effort by MOJO Scotland to set up such a retreat is supported by a range of well-respected lawyers who have directly helped miscarriage of justice victims.

Throughout the UK, guilty inmates undergo a programme that includes phased release, counselling and assistance with employment, housing and benefits. Other than that provided by MOJO Scotland and the royal courts of justice citizens advice bureau there is no other support for miscarriage of justice victims. The guilty often get better treatment than the innocent. So what has been the government’s response?

I have explained Dr. Grounds’ view that these individuals suffer a complexity of difficulties that in practice are not well met by mental health services. It is his view, and that of many others, that specialist support is required for that special group of prisoners. To expect them neatly to fit into the norms of society when they have been wrongly cooped up in prison for years is naive. Contrary to what the then Home Secretary said nine years ago, it is increasingly clear now, if it was not then, that we need a separate system of care and support.

There are parallels with the armed forces for establishing separate systems. For instance, at Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham there is a military-managed ward. In the Priory and Combat Stress, we have mental health support for servicemen and ex-servicemen suffering mental health difficulties. I believe that there is evidence to support the case for having a specialist system of support for miscarriage of justice victims. I believe the government have a moral responsibility financially to support such a development.

This article is based on a speech by Willie Rennie in Westminster Hall on 25th July 2007.

Willie Rennie is Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence spokesperson.

Please click here to watch Willie Rennie’s speech on parliament live TV
(Note the video will only be available 28 days after the speech)