R v McIlkenny
The convictions of the Birmingham Six for the 1974 pub bombings were quashed after fresh evidence showed that police evidence had been fabricated and the scientific evidence was unreliable.
Facts
Six men were convicted in 1975 of the murder of 21 people in the IRA bombings of two pubs in Birmingham in 1974. The convictions were based largely on confessions, which the men said had been obtained by violence, and on forensic tests which purported to show that two of them had handled explosives. Their first appeal was dismissed, and a reference by the Home Secretary in 1987 also failed. Following further investigations, the Home Secretary referred the case back again.
Legal principle
On the second reference, the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions. The court found that fresh scientific evidence showed that the forensic tests were unreliable, because the results could have been caused by other substances, and that fresh evidence, including ink tests on police notes of interviews, showed that some of the police evidence had been fabricated, so that the confessions could not be relied on. The court said that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The case, together with others such as the Guildford Four, led to the establishment of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Related cases on appeals and miscarriages of justice
- R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18, [2012] 1 AC 48
- R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279
- R v Bentley (Deceased) [2001] 1 Cr App R 21
- R v Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 1
- R v Chalkley [1998] QB 848
- R v Clark (Sally) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
- R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267
- R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903
Studying criminal procedure? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
