Ed Cape is a solicitor. If you are a criminal practitioner you will know his name – he is an expert on the role of police station duty solicitors. For many years he practised in the Bristol St Paul’s area. Now that he has escaped to academia and become a professor at the University of the West of England, there were no surprises in the subject of his somewhat delayed inaugural lecture: the importance of effective criminal defence work in the police station.

Professor Cape’s argument was given added force by the fact that 15 people were formally charged for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in relation to the case of the ‘Cardiff Three’ a few days previously. Thirteen of them were retired or serving police officers. The case of the Cardiff Three – Stephen Miller, Yusef Abullahi and Anthony Paris – reflects little credit on the part of any in the criminal justice system, except perhaps the Court of Appeal led by Lord Taylor. As Lord Chief Justice, he finally listened to the tape of their police interview and commented: ‘Short of physical violence, it is hard to conceive of a more hostile and intimidating approach.’ Miller, then a juvenile, finally admitted to the murder after five days of interviews and having denied the charge on more than 300 occasions. The only problem: Jeffrey Gafoor actually committed the murder.

The case, in which Professor Cape has professional interest, is an uncomfortable one for both branches of the legal profession. Miller’s representation in police interview, or lack of it, was cited in the judgment – his solicitor had been ‘gravely at fault for sitting passively through this travesty of an interview’, an interview in which his client was bullied into a confession. The effect of the consequent revelation of failure has been profound – the case kick-started the police station accreditation scheme and laid the groundwork for the quality assurance mechanisms of the Legal Services Commission.

To its credit, the Law Society instantly recognised the potential damage of the case, but the police were slower to react. Robert Lawrence, Chief Constable for South Wales police at the time of the Cardiff Three’s release, refused even to initiate a disciplinary investigation into his officers’ alleged conduct. He indicated that there was no intention to open up a fresh investigation (pretty clear code for what he thought of the Court of Appeal). It took some time for the police to take the acquittals seriously, though, to be fair, once they did, the investigation proceeded with commendable thorough­ness. Forensics officers found a tiny bloodstain at the scene and Gafoor was subsequently traced through a juvenile relative on the police database whose DNA was similar to his own. The case was wrapped up when he confessed.

The first group of defendants charged with conspiracy to pervert the course were three lay witnesses. Despite their claim that they had been bullied just as much as the defendants, the three were sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment last December.

The case is a reminder that the price of effective criminal defence is eternal vigilance. Contrary to assumptions sometimes made, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the existence of the duty solicitor schemes are necessary, but by no means sufficient, requirements of effective provision. The Cardiff Three, and the more recent release of Sean Hodgson after spending 27 years in jail for a murder he did not commit, provide timely reminders against complacency in relation to miscarriages of justice. There are lessons here for the LSC and Ministry of Justice. Funding for the police station duty solicitor scheme on the one hand, and the Criminal Cases Review Commission on the other, should not be squeezed too hard for savings. Proven miscarriages of justice do terrible damage to the legitimacy of the whole system.

The European Court of Human Rights is showing a slow convergence of views with the UK over the importance of pre-charge advice. Historically, it has been reluctant to require states to provide lawyers to those being interviewed before charge. But a recent case marks a hardening of view. In Salduz v Turkey, Mr Salduz had been convicted on the basis of admissions made during pre-charge interrogation of being involved in an unlawful demonstration on behalf of proscribed Kurdish organisation, the PKK, when he was 17. Specifically, he was accused of hanging a banner from a bridge. Salduz withdrew these confessions at a hearing before an examining judge and was provided with legal representation for his subsequent trial. He alleged that the admissions had been obtained under duress but was, nevertheless, convicted by a State Security Court. The court’s judgment is worth quoting: ‘The court underlines the importance of the investigation stage for the preparation of the criminal proceedings, as the evidence obtained during this stage determines the framework in which the offence charged will be considered at the trial… At the same time, an accused often finds himself in a particularly vulnerable position at that stage of the proceedings… In most cases, this particular vulnerability can only be properly compensated for by the assistance of a lawyer…’

The timing of Professor Cape’s choice of subject was impeccable. Cases both here and in Turkey underline the need for effective representation in police stations. Governments – and the legal profession – should take note: solicitors need adequate funding; clients need adequate solicitors.

Roger Smith is director of the law reform and human rights organisation Justice