Miscarriage of justice

Published: 28 January, 2011

• TOM Foot’s article on the renewed effort to overturn the conviction of James Hanratty is overdue (Hanratty – the campaign to clear his name continues, Review, January 14). 

Being in my 80th year, I can well recall being shocked by the jury’s verdict. It is worth mentioning that several authors have argued for Hanratty’s innocence, not only Tom’s admirable relation Paul Foot, whom I knew well, but also, among others, Bob Woffinden, who will shortly be bringing out a new edition of his book. 

The Hanratty murder conviction shares two characteristics with subsequent appalling miscarriages (Guildford Four, Birmingham Six). 

Juries are more prone to convict if the crime is particularly horrific, diluting the injunction to give defendants the benefit of reasonable doubt. 

They are encouraged in this attitude by the assurance of the authorities that the perpetrators will not escape punishment, that detection is certain. 

The other shared characteristic in these and many other miscarriages is that it took the judiciary two or more trials before they finally got it right. In the Hanratty case, it is worth noting that the Appeal Court verdict was delivered – emphatically, excluding any element of doubt – by the otherwise liberal Lord Woolf.

ROBERT SIMPSON, N1