Introduction
The UK criminal justice system operates within a delicate balance between two competing models: crime control and due process. The crime control model, prioritising efficiency, public safety, and the swift conviction of offenders, often places emphasis on state power and procedural speed (Packer, 1968). In contrast, the due process model underscores individual rights, fairness, and the prevention of wrongful convictions, prioritising legal safeguards over expediency (Packer, 1968). Understanding which model better reflects the contemporary UK system requires an examination of its policies, practices, and notable case studies. This essay explores the tension between these models, analysing their relevance through three significant cases: the Horizon IT scandal, the Oval Four, and the Stockwell Six. While elements of both models are evident in the UK system, this essay argues that the crime control model tends to dominate, often at the expense of due process, though recent reforms and public scrutiny suggest a growing push towards balancing these competing priorities.
Conceptual Framework: Crime Control and Due Process
Herbert Packer’s seminal work on criminal justice models provides a useful lens for this analysis. The crime control model views the criminal justice system as a mechanism to suppress criminal behaviour through efficient processes, often assuming a presumption of guilt to facilitate rapid convictions (Packer, 1968). This approach is reflected in policies such as mandatory sentencing and increased police powers, which prioritise public safety over individual liberties. Conversely, the due process model operates on a presumption of innocence, advocating for rigorous legal protections to ensure fairness and prevent state overreach (Packer, 1968). This model is evident in safeguards like the right to a fair trial and legal representation under the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK Government, 1998).
In practice, the UK system incorporates elements of both models, yet their application often varies depending on political, social, and institutional pressures. For instance, public demand for tougher responses to crime may push towards crime control, while high-profile miscarriages of justice can prompt calls for stronger due process protections. The following sections evaluate this balance through specific case studies.
Case Study 1: The Horizon IT Scandal
The Horizon IT scandal, involving the wrongful prosecution of over 700 sub-postmasters between 1999 and 2015, highlights the dangers of prioritising crime control over due process. The Post Office, relying on flawed data from the Horizon IT system, accused innocent individuals of theft and false accounting, leading to convictions, imprisonment, and severe personal consequences (Halliday, 2021). This case reflects a crime control approach, where the state aggressively pursued convictions based on questionable evidence, assuming guilt rather than critically assessing the system’s reliability. Due process principles, such as the right to challenge evidence, were undermined as defendants struggled to access technical data or receive adequate legal support.
The subsequent public inquiry and the Court of Appeal’s decision to quash many convictions in 2021 reveal a belated shift towards due process, exposing systemic failures in balancing efficiency with fairness (Halliday, 2021). This case suggests that, while crime control may dominate initial responses, public and judicial backlash can reassert due process values, albeit often after significant harm has occurred.
Case Study 2: The Oval Four
The Oval Four case, involving the wrongful conviction of four Black men in 1972 for assault and theft, further illustrates the historical dominance of crime control in the UK system. Arrested based on fabricated evidence and coerced confessions, the men were convicted in a climate of racial bias and aggressive policing under the controversial ‘sus’ laws, which allowed police to stop and search individuals without substantial evidence (Bowling and Phillips, 2002). This case epitomises a crime control approach, where the state prioritised rapid convictions to maintain public order, disregarding due process protections such as fair evidence-gathering and unbiased proceedings.
The convictions were overturned in 2019, nearly five decades later, following persistent campaigning and legal challenges, reflecting a slow but significant move towards due process (BBC News, 2019). However, the initial failures demonstrate how crime control, often intertwined with systemic biases, can marginalise individual rights, particularly for vulnerable groups. This case underscores the argument that, historically, the UK system has leaned heavily towards crime control, with due process often applied retroactively through appeals rather than proactively during initial proceedings.
Case Study 3: The Stockwell Six
Similarly, the Stockwell Six case, involving six Black men wrongfully convicted of assault in 1972, exposes the same systemic preference for crime control over due process. Like the Oval Four, the Stockwell Six were victims of fabricated evidence and police misconduct during a period when public safety concerns and racial prejudices fuelled aggressive policing tactics (BBC News, 2021). The state’s focus on securing convictions to deter crime overlooked fundamental due process rights, including the right to a fair trial. Their convictions were quashed in 2021, again highlighting a delayed recognition of due process principles (BBC News, 2021).
Both the Oval Four and Stockwell Six cases reveal a recurring pattern in the UK criminal justice system: an initial prioritisation of crime control, followed by corrective due process measures only after prolonged advocacy. This pattern suggests that, while due process mechanisms exist, they are often reactive rather than embedded in everyday practice, particularly in cases involving marginalised communities.
Analysis: Balancing Crime Control and Due Process in the UK Today
The case studies above indicate that the UK criminal justice system has historically leaned towards a crime control model, often prioritising efficiency and public safety over individual rights. Policies such as increased surveillance, stop-and-search powers, and stringent sentencing guidelines reflect this tendency, driven by political pressures to appear ‘tough on crime’ (Ashworth and Zedner, 2014). However, the overturning of convictions in all three cases signals a growing awareness of due process, influenced by public scrutiny, legal reforms, and international human rights standards.
Nevertheless, challenges remain. The Horizon IT scandal demonstrates how institutional failures and an over-reliance on technology can undermine due process in modern contexts, while the Oval Four and Stockwell Six cases reveal how systemic biases can exacerbate the prioritization of crime control. Arguably, the UK system today reflects a hybrid approach, with crime control dominating operational priorities—such as policing and prosecution—while due process gains traction through appellate processes and public accountability mechanisms.
Furthermore, legislative developments, such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which expands police powers to restrict protests, suggest an ongoing tilt towards crime control (UK Government, 2022). Yet, the establishment of independent bodies like the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) indicates a commitment to rectifying miscarriages of justice, embodying due process values (CCRC, 2023). This duality underscores the complexity of fully aligning with either model in practice.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the UK criminal justice system incorporates elements of both crime control and due process, the crime control model appears to better reflect its operational reality today. The Horizon IT scandal, Oval Four, and Stockwell Six cases collectively highlight a historical and, to some extent, contemporary preference for efficiency and public safety over individual rights, often resulting in significant miscarriages of justice. However, the belated recognition of due process through overturned convictions and public inquiries suggests a gradual shift towards balance. The implications of this tension are profound, necessitating ongoing reforms to embed due process protections more proactively within the system. Without such efforts, the risk of prioritising crime control at the expense of fairness remains, particularly for vulnerable populations. Ultimately, achieving a true equilibrium between these models remains a critical challenge for the UK criminal justice system as it navigates evolving societal and legal demands.
References
- Ashworth, A. and Zedner, L. (2014) Preventive Justice. Oxford University Press.
- BBC News (2019) Oval Four: Men have convictions quashed in ‘historic’ ruling. BBC.
- BBC News (2021) Stockwell Six: Two men have 1972 convictions quashed. BBC.
- Bowling, B. and Phillips, C. (2002) Racism, Crime and Justice. Longman.
- Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) (2023) Our Purpose and Values. CCRC.
- Halliday, J. (2021) Post Office scandal: Convictions of 39 Horizon victims quashed. The Guardian.
- Packer, H. L. (1968) The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford University Press.
- UK Government (1998) Human Rights Act 1998. Legislation.gov.uk.
- UK Government (2022) Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Legislation.gov.uk.
