In a week when Mr Bates gave evidence at the ongoing inquiry into the post office scandal, here Rosalind Crone, Professor of History at The Open University, points to a 129-year old case that contains similar hallmarks: a grave miscarriage of justice; massive press attention and storytelling that made all the difference.
Google the name Adolf Beck and up comes the alarming case of the Norwegian-born businessman living in London who was convicted of a string of frauds against women.
There were two criminal trials against this innocent man, but proving police had the wrong person was almost impossible.
Even in the face of strong evidence that undermined the original case, much like those sub post masters/mistresses wrongfully convicted of fraud, it was a long road to exoneration.
Then, too, the press became involved but the tide only turned after some clever campaigning by author and journalist George R. Sims and vocal support from Sherlock Holmes writer Arthur Conan Doyle leading to the creation of the Criminal Court of Appeal in 1908, which still exists today.
In another parallel, Beck won compensation of £5,000, equivalent to about £500,000 today, a sum close to that being discussed as compensation for each of those post masters/mistresses who have been wrongly convicted.
Alleged crime of romance fraud
Beck’s alleged crime in 1896 was one of romance fraud: around 50 women were separately invited to go on holiday to the French Riviera with a conman who bore a strong resemblance to Beck.
He’d write them a cheque to buy new clothes and borrow a ring or two in order to have new ones made.
The cheques bounced and the jewellery vanished, as did the would-be suitor. The real culprit was Wilhelm Meyer from Vienna, who performed an identical trick in 1877, for which he had been incarcerated under the alias of John Smith.
Unfortunately for Beck, ten of those 50 ladies, who later saw him at the police station, identified him as the man they had met.
Police were convinced Beck and Smith were one and the same. Yet, much like the Post Office scandal, there was a flaw: for these late 19th century investigating officers, it was their reliance on witness identification. Beck’s pleas of innocence, and evidence he was not even resident in England in 1877, fell on deaf ears.
Flaw in ‘evidence’ heavily relied upon by lawmakers
In 1896, he was sent to prison for seven years and given Smith’s prisoner number, DW523, which marked him out as a repeat offender. Like the Post Office scandal, the case rested on absolute confidence in the technology – in this case human facial recognition.
As well as eyewitnesses, the police had a photograph of the real culprit, ‘John Smith’, taken on his conviction in 1877, which they believed provided additional proof that Smith and Beck were the same person.
We know today that eyewitness testimony and historic photographs can be notoriously unreliable. The use of fingerprints to identify repeat offenders didn’t begin until the early twentieth century.
In 1896, there was no court of criminal appeal and the judge didn’t think there was any problem with what had gone on in his court room.
Defendant’s proof of innocence ignored
Beck’s only option was to petition the Home Secretary to try to secure a pardon, which didn’t work. Then, in 1898, Beck’s solicitor discovered that the original culprit, ‘John Smith’ was Jewish and had been circumcised.
As Beck had not, this provided conclusive proof that Beck was not Smith. Even this was not enough to clear Beck’s name. The Home Office simply requested that Beck be assigned a new prisoner number – W78 – to remove his association with Smith.
Beck was eventually released from prison in July 1901 to serve the remaining part of his sentence on licence. But in 1904, he was rearrested, in a complete re-run of 1896.
This time five women, who had been tricked out of money and jewellery by a man using the same MO, positively identified Beck as the culprit.
Again, Beck stood trial at The Old Bailey for fraud and a jury found him guilty. Yet the frauds continued while Beck was in prison awaiting sentence.
Justice eventually prevailed
Wilhelm Meyer, who called himself William Thomas, was arrested and confessed that he was, indeed, the John Smith of 1877 and the conman involved in the 1896 and 1904 offences.
Ten days after his release from prison, Beck was pardoned for both convictions. But Beck and his friend, journalist George R. Sims, pursued compensation, an inquiry and legal reform – namely, the establishment of a court of criminal appeal.
Sims mounted a successful press campaign, which began in the Daily Mail and was quickly adopted by other national newspapers.
Sherlock Holmes author Conan Doyle also took up the mantle, too. He is quoted as saying:
“To use the word justice at all in connection of the trials and depiction of Adolf Beck is a mockery – from first to last.
“This unhappy man has been the victim of proceedings which are nothing short of a conspiracy to secure the conviction of a prisoner by suppressing facts which would have ensured his triumphant acquittal.”
While Beck and Sims achieved their aims, Beck didn’t have long to enjoy his victory. Time served in prison, including hard labour in the Portland quarries, took a physical toll. He died in 1909, a year after the establishment of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Although the story is not over for those caught up in the Post Office scandal, it might end in a similar way to Beck’s. An inquiry is already under way, a compensation scheme has been set up, and legal reform may follow.
Historical cases of miscarriages of justice provide essential cautionary tales – training tools for those in positions of responsibility – to prevent complacency and to nurture a healthy scepticism towards technology. As we grapple with the new world of Artificial Intelligence, I feel this is more important than ever.
