The setting up of the Runciman Royal Commission on Criminal Justice was announced on the day that the Birmingham Six had their convictions quashed in a world-wide blaze of publicity.

Understandably, for most people, the Runciman commission was primarily about the prevention of miscarriages of justice.

Indeed, some were surprised that the report also made recommendations designed to assist the prosecution and to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system.

But the commission's terms of reference required it 'to examine the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in England and Wales in securing the conviction of those guilty of criminal offences and the acquittal of those who are innocent, having regard to the efficient use of resources'.

The remit was therefore much broader than simply responding to the immediate cause for the establishment of the commission.

It was to look at all aspects of the system, other than punishment.I believe that every member of the commission ranked not convicting the innocent first in importance, convicting the guilty second, and economy and efficiency third.

But this still left open the question as to what recommendations to make.

The task was to strike the appropriate balance b etween the three parts of the remit so as to give due P but not necessarily equal P weight to each of the three considerations.It would be unrealistic to say that the commission's task was to end miscarriages of justice for all time.

The risk of miscarriages of justice unfortunately cannot be eliminated.

They may occur because of perjury, fabrication or suppression of evidence.

Often they result from incompetence, such as poor preparatory work by the defence team, or just from human fallibility, such as mistaken eye-witness evidence.

A great deal of the commission's time was spent addressing the task of reducing the risk of miscarriages to a minimum.

The commission also had to consider the immense number and variety of proposals directed to that end that were urged by those who submitted evidence.The commission's report was awaited with a great sense of anticipation, but when it was published, the reaction was mixed.

It was broadly welcomed, albeit subject to reservations, by some (including Lord Taylor, the Lord Chief Justice), but criticised by others, especially civil libertarians.

Proposals suggested by the 'civil liberties lobby' P and rejected P foundered mainly because the commission, having deliberated and considered all the evidence, did not agree that the proposal would be as effective in helping to prevent miscarriages of justice as its proponents thought, or because it felt on balance that the proposal had more disadvantages than advantages.

Most of the critical comment following publication of the report focused on a tiny number of the 352 recommendations.

The overwhelming majority of the recommendations attracted no comment whatever P and, understandably therefore, are little known.In fact the commission made a whole raft of proposals designed to make it less likely that the innocent would be convicted.

The most important of these proposals are summarised in the rest of this article in the hope that those who share Tom Sargant's concerns and values may see that the commission in which they invested so much hope did not work in vain.

Police investigation (chapter 2)-- The police to make a record of the description of the suspect as first given to them by a potential witness P to be disclosed to the defence at the earliest possible opportunity.

(No.2)-- Before an identification parade, the police to give the suspect's solicitor details of any description of the offender given by witnesses to attend the parade.

(No.5)-- The jury to be warned to take account of witnesses who do not identify the suspect who had the same opportunity to recognise as witnesses who made a positive identification.

(No.7)-- The new national training in basic interviewing, including the requirements of ethical interviewing, to be given to all ranks of police officers.

(No.11)-- Code C of PACE to be examined with a view to amendment to specify the minimum length of breaks between interviews.

(No.12)-- Overhaul of detective training to emphasise the mistakes most commonly made during investigations and how they can be avoided.

(No.29)-- Police performance not to be assessed unduly on the basis of arrest or conviction rates.

Performance measures to be based on quality of work performed.

(No.31)-- All forces to have a 'helpline' to assist 'whistleblowers'.

Police 'whistleblowers' also to be able to report alleged misconduct of colleagues to the HM Inspectorate.

(No.32)-- All forces to issue officers with notebooks numbered sequentially.

(No.33)Safeguards for suspects (chapter 3)-- The feasibility of tape-recording of exchanges outside the police station should be explored (both to reduce risk of 'verballing' and to record confessions and admissions).

(No.38)-- Any alleged admission made by the suspect outside the police station to be put to the suspect at the start of a tape-recorded interview in the police station P after an opportunity of consulting a solicitor in private.

(No.40)-- Better training for custody officers and those who supervise them.

(Nos.45 and 46)-- Continuous video-recording, including sound-track, of all the activities in the custody suite, including passage-ways to cells.

(No.50)-- A simplified version of the notice to detained persons devised by researchers for the commission to be further tested with a view to getting a better one introduced.

(No.52)-- Where needed, a fully qualified interpreter, preferably one independent of the police, to be used wherever practicable when a suspect is giving instructions to a solicitor.

(No.53)-- When a suspect waives his right to legal advice this should be recorded on tape at the custody desk if video recording is introduced.

(No.57)-- Suspects who decline legal advice should first be given the opportunity to speak to a duty solicitor on the phone about the desirability of such waiver.

(No.59)-- Solicitors on arrival at the police station should be able to hear the tapes of any interviews that may have taken place with the client before they arrived.

(No.62)-- Code C should be amended to encourage the police to tell the solicitor at least the general nature of the case and of the evidence against the suspect.

(No.63)-- Police training to deal with the role of defence solicitors.

(No.64)-- The Law Society and the Legal Aid Board to ensure better standards of work by defence solicitors and their clerks in the police station.

(Nos.65, 66, 67 and 68)-- An expert Home Office committee to be set up on the role, functions, training, etc of 'appropriate adults' for children, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill.

(Nos.72 and 73)-- Experiments with duty psychiatric schemes for busy police stations to be instituted.

(No.75)-- Acquittal of a police officer in a criminal case no longer to be a bar to disciplinary proceedings on the same facts P ie abolition of the 'double jeopardy rule'.

(No.76)-- The standard of proof in police disciplinary proceedings to be less than the criminal standard.

(No.77)-- Systematic arrangements should be made to ensure that criticisms of police misconduct by a court are passed on to the force concerned.

(No.80)The 'right of silence' and confession evidence (chapter 4)-- The right of silence in the police station to be preserved.

(No.82)-- The decision in Galbraith to be reversed so that a judge would be able to stop a case if, in his view, the prosecution's evidence is too weak to be left to the jury.

(No.86)-- The judge to warn the jury about the dangers of confession evidence and about the need for great care before convicting on a confession not supported by other evidence.

(Nos.89 and 90)Pre-trial procedures (chapters 6,7)-- Police and prosecution lawyers in the various stages of a prosecution to sign certificates that to the best of their knowledge and belief, they have complied with their duties in regard to prosecution disclosure.

(No.l28)-- The level of legal aid fees to be such as to ensure a sufficient supply of competent practitioners.

(No.l74)-- Proper and prompt payment of defence experts.

(No.l75)The trial (chapter 8)-- Defendant not to be open to have his previous convictions introduced in evid ence where he has attacked the reputation or character of prosecution witnesses and such an attack is central to his defence.

(Abolition of the 'tit-for-tat' rule.) (No.199) q Defence barristers to be permitted to speak to defence witnesses before trial.

(No.199)Forensic science (chapter 9)-- Public sector labs should look on themselves as equally available to the defence as to the prosecution.

(Nos.265 and 266)-- Where the defence believes there may be material at a lab which throws doubt on tests done for the prosecution, they should be entitled to have access to the original notes of the experiment.

(No.281)-- When exhibits are taken for analysis, the need of the defence to have material on which to do their tests to be taken into account.

(No.282)-- When someone has been charged, the defence should have the right to be present to observe scientific tests done for the prosecution P and to take away material for their own tests.

(No.283)-- The new Forensic Science Advisory Council should keep under review the extent to which the interests of the defence are properly provided for by forensic science.

(No.286)The Court of Appeal (chapter 10)-- After conviction in the Crown Court a prisoner should be seen by his lawyers and given preliminary written advice.

(Nos.303, 304, 305 and 306)-- Prisoners should be informed as to the true position regarding loss of time for 'frivolous' appeals.

Prisoners' and lawyers' ignorance on this important issue should not be allowed to continue.

(No.307)-- The entitlement to legal advice on appeal should cover advice on whether to renew an application to the full court after it has been turned down by the single judge.

(No.314)-- The Court of Appeal should be less reluctant than now to quash a jury's verdict where it thinks the evidence does not support a conviction.

(No.319)-- In considering whether to receive fresh evidence, the Court of Appeal should take a broad view as to the question of whether the evidence was available at the time of the trial and, if it was, whether there was a reasonable explanation for it not having been produced.

(No.320)-- Where an appeal is based on error by the defence lawyers, the test should not be whether there was 'flagrantly incompetent advocacy'.

The test should be whether the lawyer's conduct caused a miscarriage of justice.

(No.321)-- The test for receiving fresh evidence should be whether it is 'capable of belief' rather than 'likely to be credible'.

(No.322)-- Where the court would wish to order a retrial but a retrial is not practicable, (say, because of the passage of time), it should quash the conviction.

(No.324)Correction of miscarriages of justice (chapter 11)-- A new body, the Criminal Cases Review Authority (CCRA), should be established to investigate alleged cases of miscarriage of justice and to make referrals to the CA in place of the C3 division in the Home Office.

(No.331)-- The CCRA should be able to discuss cases direct with applicants and should be adequately resourced to conduct interviews with prisoners.

(No.345)-- The CCRA should have the power to direct investigations, including the power to direct that the investigation be carried out by a different police force.

(No.347)-- Where an applicant to the CCRA requires legal representation, legal aid should be made available on the basis of recommendations by the CCRA.

(No.352)I believe that most of these proposals will be implemented P and that, if implemented, they will have a major impact in preventing miscarriages of justice.

Speaking of the whole rep ort the Lord Chief Justice said: 'With a few exceptions, the commission's recommendations may individually seem modest.

But it is important to see them as an integrated package whose overall impact will be profound.' In my view, these words are entirely apt for the dozens of recommendations designed to reduce the risk of miscarriages of justice.