To the Editor: Byard’s succinct dissertation on the Clark case1 omits one crucial aspect in redressing this miscarriage of justice. Without the vigorous and persistent efforts of a vocal and well directed support group, which included Mrs Clark’s legal team, their scientific and medical advisors, the Law Society of England, and her family, she would still be serving a life sentence in jail.

An Australian example of the effectiveness of such a support group in combating injustice is afforded by the Lindy Chamberlain case.2

Historically, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle spearheaded the efforts — sustained over nearly 20 years — to exonerate Oscar Slater,3 an unfortunate German–Jewish immigrant to Glasgow who was condemned to death after a conviction for murder based largely on identification evidence given by one of the probable perpetrators. Slater was granted a reprieve from the death sentence at the last moment, only to serve some 17 years in a grim Scottish penitentiary. Less fortunate was Timothy Evans,4 who was convicted and hanged for murdering his wife and daughter on the evidence of one of London’s infamous mass murderers, John Christie. Evans was eventually pardoned — unfortunately, too late to save his life — largely thanks to a very active support group headed by the journalist Ludovic Kennedy.

In contrast, those who lack such a support group are exemplified by Ziggy Pohl,5 who was convicted, despite rather than because of the evidence, of killing his wife in Queanbeyan, NSW. He served more than a decade in prison, only to have the true perpetrator confess after Pohl was released on parole.

Byard highlights evidentiary shortcomings in one recent English case. How many other people have suffered the ignominy, distress and dire consequences of unjust convictions because they lacked the support of an individual or a group prepared to question the propriety of the conviction process?