A stalker and a fantasist, but a good example of judicial operations

What insight does the Barry George case give us into the workings of the UK court system, and how can it be integrated into an answer on the judiciary?

First, who is Barry George? If you are not familiar with the case, in summary George is the man recently acquitted of killing Jill Dando, the TV presenter, outside her home in 1999. His conviction was quashed at the Old Bailey this week as a result of doubts over the reliability of evidence of firearms residue.

As far as the politics of the judiciary are concerned, there are two sides to the debate about how the appeals process indicates whether rights are effectively protected in the UK.

On one side we can say that the appeals procedure has ensured that the right to a fair trial is upheld: the Guildford Four were released in 1989; in 1997 the men alleged to have killed Carl Bridgewater were released; in 1998 Derek Bentley’s murder conviction was quashed; in 2002 Stephen Downing was released after his conviction was declared unsafe.

On the other hand we can say that the high profile cases of miscarriage of justice outlined above, as well as numerous other lower profile cases, have led many to lose faith in the courts. Analysis suggests that an average of seven cases per year are quashed after referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We must also consider the length of the appeal cases. Speaking about his 27 years in jail, Stephen Downing admitted that he often felt dehumanised, saying, ‘You’re just a statistic and nobody cares about you.’

So the Barry George case can be used to help you construct arguments on both sides of the debate. In the end, George has had his conviction overturned, but as Duncan Campbell points out in the Guardian today, the number of unsafe convictions may be higher than in the dark days of the 1970s when the likes of the Guildford Four were convicted.