So wrote Lord Justice Tucker on the very anniversary of Amanda's death when turning down Kevin Callan's initial application for leave to appeal (against his conviction for murder), based on evidence he had personally researched and discovered and which ultimately resulted in a successful appeal, uncontested by the Crown.

In one stroke of the pen can be seen the real and ever-present serious shortcomings of our system of criminal justice. It was confidently being predicted after the well documented, high profile approach at the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, the Tottenham 3, Judith Ward, the Maguire 7, Stefan Kiszko that such miscarriages were 'a thing of the past', unlikely to return.

A Royal Commission established in their wake was supposed to make proposals which would help to make such travesties a rare phenomenon. The reality is that both then and now those responsible for the administration of criminal justice have dismally failed to recognise the short-comings inherent in the system itself.

Kevin's case, and his book, is a timely reminder of how serious the situation has become. Because it did not attract the publicity and attention it deserved there was a risk that the lessons to be learned would go unheeded. Once more, it is the victim who has managed to place on record the measure of injustice for all to see.

For me, his example is, in a way, the most telling of all. Although, fortunately, he did not spend sixteen years in prison, it is only by a whisker that such a calamity was avoided. That whisker was Kevin himself. The criminal justice system up to that point did nothing, quite the reverse.

At every stage, the problems that have beset so may other cases arose once more. Gross assumptions, misconceptions and preconceptions were displayed by the investigating police. The grand advocates, both political and legal, who recently swept away one more fundamental right the right to silence - did so on the basis that 'innocence will always speak'. Kevin did, repeatedly asserting that he was not responsible for Amanda's death. To no avail. Such demands were merely treated as grist to the mill.

Despite having been charged with murder, his was an obvious case for bail. In the event, he remained in custody throughout the remand period between arrest in 1991 and conviction in 1992. A far from satisfactory position in which to face a trial for your life.
But the worst was yet to come. Essentially, the case against Kevin depended on the opinion of experts: that the injuries to her head, primarily a double haematoma, were caused by shaking, not by a combination of accidental falls and collisions occasioned by the cerebral palsy of the four-year-old and spasticdiplegia. She could only speak a few words and she could only walk a few steps with the aid of splints. There was clear evidence, particularly from Amanda's mother, that Kevin loved Amanda dearly.

No one, either before the trial or during the trial, whether they be lawyer, judge, police officer, junior or medical expert, noted that the opinions sought had not been obtained from the appropriate field of medical expertise. They cannot be written off as 'nobody's fault', just as an unhappy but unforeseeable event. It represents a long-standing unwillingness to ensure proper resources, education and training are provided in the legal framework so that all participants have equal access and understanding. As we approach the millennium, we still await the establishment of a national Forensic Science Institute, a properly financed and provisioned independent scientific facility, a properly indexed and authorised registration system. Despite repeated requests from Lord Dainton's Committee, from Lord Taylor the former Lord Chief Justice, and to a limited extent from the Royal Commission, no progress has been made. Even as this book is published, Michael Howard, commenting on the Caddy report into potential semtex contamination, is still not sure whether he should adopt a proposal for an independent inspectorate to maintain quality performance, protocol and standards. This attitude is both arrogant and shamefully little short of criminal. His approach demonstrates a continuing lack of adequate concern for miscarriages of justice and has more to do with his insatiable desire for policies which might win votes and incur little cost.

Following Kevin's conviction, spurred on by his burning sense of injustice, he fought on, persisting in the belief that there must be an expert somewhere in the world who could help.

Despite the allocated time for lodging notices of appeal passing by, the limited letter allowance, the exigencies of the prison library, the difficulties in obtaining transcripts and his own educational background, he sought out and identified the very expertise required. Instead of a consultant paediatrician with pathological experience and a pathologist, called at trial, he consulted the author of the book he had found, a neurosurgeon, Mr Wrightson, living in New Zealand. The trial was followed through by direct contact and support from this eminent practitioner and beyond to another expert of great standing, Dr Helen Whitwell - a neuropathologist. Their opinions were in stark contrast to the original opinions.

The decision of the single judge to refuse these new opinions is part of a dangerous wind of change apparent in the Court of Appeal. It was hoped that earlier miscarriage cases had alerted the Court to the deficiencies of science (Maguire, Judith Ward) and the need for special care. It was hoped that the public debate and proposed changes to the terms of the Criminal Appeal Act would lead to a greater willingness to receive fresh evidence. The 'no second bite of the cherry' doctrine is an uncritical and simplistic test which owes more to the desire for finality than a search for truth. It does not even discern whether it is the same cherry.

Kevin's testament is also a monument. Before it is too late, let there be no more names inscribed in the hall of judicial infamy.

Michael Mansfield QC