Taylor backs judge in Nikki Allen case
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.LORD TAYLOR of Gosforth, the Lord Chief Justice, last night issued a strong defence of the judge in the Nikki Allen case, warning that miscarriages of justice would occur if courts did not exclude doubtful confession evidence.
Lord Taylor said he found it 'hard to comprehend' that after public concern about miscarriages centred on unreliable confessions, judges were being criticised for excluding them. In a clear criticism of Northumbria Police, he also referred to 'attempts' to justify the conduct of the interviews.
This week, George Heron was cleared of the murder of Nikki Allen, aged seven, after the trial judge ruled inadmissible an interview in which he confessed to detectives - because it was 'oppressive'.
Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, established following an earlier series of miscarriages, judges have powers to reject interviews which break the strict guidelines governing police conduct.
Lord Taylor said: 'Despite the consternation and the public's sense of outrage that those (earlier) miscarriages should have occurred and the determination that there should be no repetition, what do we find? That when judges exclude confessions obtained in breach of the Act, by oppressive interviewing, attempts are made in some quarters - not in all - to justify the conduct of the interviews and to criticise the judge . . . Do those who adopt (this attitude) wish to have another group of miscarriages in five years' time?'
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments