The Trial of the Guildford Four
Government Error or Government Persecution
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4086802 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Brenda J Lutz, Georgia Wralstad Ulmschneider, James M Lutz (0000-0002-8398-5639) |
| Year | 2002 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 113-130 |
| Publication date | 2002-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Terrorism and Political Violence (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0954-6553 • E-ISSN: 1556-1836 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/714005634 |
| OpenAlex | W2029211445 |
| Language | EN |
Trials involving suspects in IRA bombing campaigns in England had resulted in convictions achieved on the basis of insufficient evidence. The trials were by their nature political given the offences involved, but they still could have been fair proceedings for those accused of the crimes. Partisan trials, involving political matters, however, are inherently unfair proceedings for which governments have essentially predetermined that a conviction will be obtained. In the case of the pub bombings in Guildford and Woolwich, four suspects were convicted, primarily as a consequence of manipulation of evidence by local police officials. The suspects were eventually freed when government officials admitted that there was not enough evidence to sustain the original convictions. Overall, while the trial process in this case displayed partisan elements, it was not a clear-cut example of a partisan trial. Both error and persecution were present in the actions of different government officials
Conviction · Criminology · Persecution · Political science · Politics · Commonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism · Criminal Law and Evidence · Law · Policing Practices and Perceptions · Psychology
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |