TEXT C The Guildford Four, freed
last week after spending 15 years in prison for crimes they did not commit,
would almost certainly have been executed for the pub bombing they were
convicted of had the death penalty been in force at the time of their trial.
There may now be a decent interval before the pro-hanging lobby, which has the
support of the Prime Minister, makes another attempt to reintroduce the
noose. Reflections along these lines were about the only kind of
consolation to be derived from this gross miscarriage of justice which is now to
be the subject of a judicial inquiry. In the meantime, defence lawyers are
demanding compensation and have in mind about half a million pounds for each of
their clients. The first three to be released -- Mr. Gerald
Conlon, Mr. Paddy Armstrong and Ms. Carole Richardson -- left prison with the 34
pounds which is given to all departing inmates. The fourth, Mr. Paul Hill, was
not released immediately but taken to Belfast, where he lodged an appeal against
his conviction for the murder of a former British soldier. Since this
conviction, too, was based on the now discredited statements allegedly made to
the Survey policy, he was immediately let out on bail. But he left
empty-handed. The immediate reaction to the scandal was renewed
demand for the re-examination of the case against the Birmingham Six, who are
serving life sentences for pub bombings in that city. Thus far the Home
secretary, Mr Douglas Hurd, is insisting that the two cases are not comparable;
that what is now known about the Guilford investigation has no relevance to what
happened in Birmingham. Mr. Hurd is right to the extent that
there was a small--though flimsy and hotly-contested -- amount of forensic
evidence in the Birmingham case. The disturbing similarity is that the
Birmingham Six, like the Guilford Four, claim that police officers lied and
fabricated evidence to secure a conviction. Making scapegoats of
a few rogue police officers will not be sufficient to expunge the Guildford
miscarriage of justice. These are already demands that the law should be
changed: first to make it impossible to convict on "confessions" alone; and
secondly to require that statements from accused persons should only be taken in
the presence of an independent third party to ensure they are not made under
coercion. It was also being noted this week that the Guilford
Four owe their release more to the persistence of investigative reporters than
to the diligence of either the judiciary or the police. Yet investigative
reports -- particularly on television -- have recently been a particular target
for the con demnation of Mrs. Thatcher and some of her ministers who seem to
think that TV should be muzzled in the public interest and left to get on with
soap operas and quiz shows. To compensate the miscarriage of justice, the defence lawyers may ______.
A.demand 500,000 pounds for the Guildford Four B.demand 500,000 pounds for each of the Guildford Four C.demand 50,000 pounds for each of the Guildford Four D.demand a re-examination of the Birmingham pub bombings