1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,840 Speaker 1: So the TERMI herey case fascinating example of the judicial 2 00:00:02,880 --> 00:00:05,360 Speaker 1: process basically being worked every which way. It began an 3 00:00:05,400 --> 00:00:07,480 Speaker 1: eighty nine, for goodness sake, with the convictions of the 4 00:00:07,520 --> 00:00:10,640 Speaker 1: murders of the two Swedish backpackers. Supreme Court yesterday quashed 5 00:00:10,680 --> 00:00:14,560 Speaker 1: those convictions. Trial was unfair, evidence was concocted. Two things 6 00:00:14,600 --> 00:00:18,480 Speaker 1: now a potential retrial and potentially compensation. Nigel Hampton k 7 00:00:18,640 --> 00:00:20,640 Speaker 1: C is back, Well, there's Nigel morning to you. 8 00:00:21,280 --> 00:00:21,800 Speaker 2: Good morning. 9 00:00:21,960 --> 00:00:24,439 Speaker 1: The Court of Appeal last year or in twenty four 10 00:00:24,520 --> 00:00:29,319 Speaker 1: rather the Harris bit of that story. They thought he 11 00:00:29,440 --> 00:00:32,199 Speaker 1: was still guilty and didn't quash. Is that is that 12 00:00:32,280 --> 00:00:34,839 Speaker 1: a major error on their part? Why would they have 13 00:00:34,920 --> 00:00:35,560 Speaker 1: done what they did? 14 00:00:36,479 --> 00:00:41,760 Speaker 2: Well? It is a major era, like right from the 15 00:00:41,800 --> 00:00:44,879 Speaker 2: time I found that they've been a miscarriage, then that 16 00:00:45,000 --> 00:00:47,440 Speaker 2: had to go back for a retrial. There were so 17 00:00:47,520 --> 00:00:50,480 Speaker 2: many fundamental things wrong with this trial going back into 18 00:00:50,520 --> 00:00:53,520 Speaker 2: the eighties, as you say, thirty six, thirty seven years ago. 19 00:00:54,120 --> 00:00:57,640 Speaker 2: Just incredible when you look back. But there were three 20 00:00:59,480 --> 00:01:04,600 Speaker 2: just here that common to miscarriages of justice, and the 21 00:01:05,560 --> 00:01:10,920 Speaker 2: three that in this particular case were one some eyewitness 22 00:01:11,000 --> 00:01:14,759 Speaker 2: identification evidence, which was always somewhat shaky, and indeed, before 23 00:01:14,800 --> 00:01:19,040 Speaker 2: the original trial started, the first trial judge wanted to 24 00:01:19,080 --> 00:01:22,480 Speaker 2: knock that evidence out that could be all put it back. Secondly, 25 00:01:22,560 --> 00:01:31,399 Speaker 2: they then had the jail house confession stuff, one of 26 00:01:31,400 --> 00:01:34,800 Speaker 2: which that they used the police used to sort of 27 00:01:35,120 --> 00:01:38,720 Speaker 2: bolster the identification evidence. And of course one of those 28 00:01:38,720 --> 00:01:42,160 Speaker 2: snitches turned out to be completely made up purjured evidence, 29 00:01:42,959 --> 00:01:46,640 Speaker 2: and that's always the problem with snitch evidence. That's usually 30 00:01:47,360 --> 00:01:56,280 Speaker 2: obtained under difficult circumstances, where often corrupt practices are present. Thirdly, 31 00:01:56,360 --> 00:02:00,320 Speaker 2: we had a police inquiry that was driven not by 32 00:02:00,360 --> 00:02:03,400 Speaker 2: the evidence, but by finding a suspect and fitting the 33 00:02:03,440 --> 00:02:06,120 Speaker 2: evidence around them. Now, put those three things together and 34 00:02:06,160 --> 00:02:07,160 Speaker 2: you get a miscarriage. 35 00:02:07,280 --> 00:02:09,600 Speaker 1: Is one of those cases? Is this one of those 36 00:02:09,639 --> 00:02:12,239 Speaker 1: cases that there was a period in this country where 37 00:02:12,240 --> 00:02:14,679 Speaker 1: the police would dodgy as basically, And we've got a 38 00:02:14,760 --> 00:02:16,480 Speaker 1: number of cases now that have been flushed through the 39 00:02:16,480 --> 00:02:18,080 Speaker 1: system and shown that to be the case. 40 00:02:19,480 --> 00:02:25,760 Speaker 2: Seventies and eighties where I had primary focused first on miscarriages, 41 00:02:26,160 --> 00:02:31,600 Speaker 2: it was a period where, particularly in high profile matters, 42 00:02:32,040 --> 00:02:35,560 Speaker 2: the police wanted to solve things, desperately wanted to have 43 00:02:35,600 --> 00:02:39,000 Speaker 2: a suspect and then finding a suspect desperately wanted to 44 00:02:39,000 --> 00:02:42,680 Speaker 2: fit the evidence around that suspect instead of having an 45 00:02:42,680 --> 00:02:45,400 Speaker 2: evidence lead inquiry. And there was so much of that 46 00:02:45,480 --> 00:02:48,400 Speaker 2: going on, too much of it going on through those 47 00:02:48,440 --> 00:02:51,840 Speaker 2: decades of seventies and eighties, and still we have some 48 00:02:51,880 --> 00:02:56,400 Speaker 2: hangovers from it. In today's practices. We try to eliminate it, 49 00:02:56,480 --> 00:03:00,240 Speaker 2: hopefully we can, and we're left with this was up 50 00:03:01,000 --> 00:03:05,320 Speaker 2: thirty forty years on of writing the wrongs that were 51 00:03:05,320 --> 00:03:06,960 Speaker 2: done in terms of those trials. 52 00:03:07,160 --> 00:03:09,400 Speaker 1: They can't retry this, can they? Realistically? 53 00:03:10,320 --> 00:03:16,000 Speaker 2: I would thought, realistically it won't happen. Attrition of memory 54 00:03:16,040 --> 00:03:22,240 Speaker 2: over time, attrition of life is over time. It's thirty 55 00:03:22,280 --> 00:03:25,679 Speaker 2: seven years on. Is there a public interest? This man 56 00:03:25,840 --> 00:03:31,359 Speaker 2: has been in jail for twenty plus years. What's the 57 00:03:31,400 --> 00:03:38,120 Speaker 2: public interest? So one evidential problems there, I've thought. Secondly 58 00:03:38,240 --> 00:03:42,040 Speaker 2: public interest? Is it really in public interest? No, it's 59 00:03:42,600 --> 00:03:44,920 Speaker 2: my guess is it's unlikely to go to trial. 60 00:03:44,800 --> 00:03:47,200 Speaker 1: And the compo would be well done on a per 61 00:03:47,280 --> 00:03:49,400 Speaker 1: year calculation like other compo has been done. 62 00:03:49,480 --> 00:03:54,440 Speaker 2: Well, that's if it happens. The compensation thing is a 63 00:03:54,680 --> 00:04:00,560 Speaker 2: very difficult process. Samahery. If there's no retri he's the 64 00:04:01,160 --> 00:04:03,920 Speaker 2: deemed to be innocent. He's the and if he's going 65 00:04:03,960 --> 00:04:07,880 Speaker 2: to get conversation, he's got to prove to the satisfaction 66 00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:09,800 Speaker 2: of the government of the day and the fact that 67 00:04:10,920 --> 00:04:14,280 Speaker 2: he was innocent. He's it's not, it's the other way around. 68 00:04:14,320 --> 00:04:16,760 Speaker 2: He's got a proof his innocence on the balance pub 69 00:04:16,800 --> 00:04:21,279 Speaker 2: disease and then get this formulae thing that is in 70 00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:22,239 Speaker 2: the cabinet papers. 71 00:04:22,440 --> 00:04:23,880 Speaker 1: All right, I mean, nice to talk to you, appreciate 72 00:04:23,880 --> 00:04:25,960 Speaker 1: it very much. Nigel Hampton case C. I'll come back. 73 00:04:26,360 --> 00:04:28,080 Speaker 1: So there will be many people listening to this program 74 00:04:28,080 --> 00:04:30,440 Speaker 1: that don't remember much of it's talking to Ryan. Ryan's 75 00:04:30,480 --> 00:04:32,960 Speaker 1: thirty seven years old. He was two years old when 76 00:04:32,960 --> 00:04:35,320 Speaker 1: this case started, so that's how long it's been going. 77 00:04:35,800 --> 00:04:38,719 Speaker 1: For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, Listen live to 78 00:04:38,800 --> 00:04:41,880 Speaker 1: news Talks it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow 79 00:04:41,920 --> 00:04:43,480 Speaker 1: the podcast on iHeartRadio.