Those outside prison fighting one another

[Nicholas]

‘Those outside prison fighting one another, will only hurt those inside fighting to get out. The present actions of JENGBA are unacceptable to MOJUK and can only damage prisoners and those supporting them!

If you are supporting someone in prison a victim of 'Joint Enterprise' you are now being forced by JENGBA to make a choice. If MOJUK had to make a choice or advise someone inside which organization might best represent the fight against 'Joint Enterprise' cases it would be to seek help from the newly formed National Joint Enterprise Casework Service (NJEC).

MOJUK fully supports the posting below from INNOCENT



‘To members of INNOCENT

This is a reminder that our next meeting will be on Wednesday, 7 March, starting at 7.00 pm, in the usual venue the Royal Oak pub in Union Street, Oldham OL1 1EN.

Members of INNOCENT have noticed that another meeting has been arranged in Manchester on the same date and at the same time by Gloria Morrison and Janet Cunliffe, who are members of JENGBA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association). This is the first of a series of meetings arranged to coincide with ours. JENGBA has contacted members of INNOCENT and urged them to attend their meetings rather than ours.

We have asked Gloria and Janet to change the date of their meetings so that INNOCENT members can attend meetings of both organisations if they wish, and do not feel forced into choosing one organisation over another. But they have flatly refused to change their meetings to different dates.

We have been saddened by the discovery that this is a deliberately hostile act. We would like to ignore this childish behaviour and we hope that all INNOCENT members will do so. JENGBA has an excellent record of publicising the terrible and frightening way in which the joint enterprise law is being used to convict innocent people, and we would not wish to prevent members of INNOCENT whose cases involve the use of joint enterprise law from participating in JENGBA's activities. The aims of INNOCENT and the aims of JENGBA are completely compatible.

But although JENGBA offers to help people with their cases, in practice it does not help anyone, and we know of no cases which it has helped to progress in any way. INNOCENT, on the other hand, has a 19 year record of helping with cases, some of which have progressed to successful appeals and the release of innocent prisoners.

Members of INNOCENT know that our meetings are of key importance for our casework. In meetings we exchange information, are brought up to date on cases, clarify the details of what has happened in them, and give support to families. It is essential that members attend meetings if they possibly can. We cannot guarantee to continue supporting cases if the families or supporters concerned stop attending our meetings.

We look forward to seeing you all on 7 March and on subsequent regular meetings of INNOCENT.

Andrew Green
Secretary
INNOCENT  /  <innocent@uk2.net>

challenging miscarriages of justice since 1993

End of Bulletin

Source for this message:
INNOCENT

[John]

It doesn't help when you have scammers and spammers like Billy Middleton promoting himself as some sort of Godsend to the poor bas...ds who are fighting real miscarriages of justice.  I'm sorry but I feel strongly about this and you know what I mean Stephanie. Look at the way they pissed you off over Simon's case and all because you were strong-willed sufficiently to speak your mind.

Middleton may have been cleared by a jury on the notoriously pathetic Scots 'not prove' sham verdict in Aberdeen over the death of his daughter in a house fire and may have got off the sex abuse charges but that for me says it all.  How can he possibly represent anyone while he is now facing the same charges in a civil court in Lerwick.  The whole thing is crazy and those idiots who are backing him better realise it before they end up like Debbie Garlick with her big plate of humble pie.   

[Angelo222]

How typical and how absolutely pathetic.  As if there isn't enough bickering on the justice scene without those two falling out as well.  Why doesn't Andrew Green change the date of his meeting so that JENGBA delegates can also attend the INNOCENT meeting?  Would that be too difficult for him to contemplate?

[John]

I think that document signed by Andrew Green is pathetic.  Talk about trying to have a go at JENGBA and as for accusing them of being deliberately hostile and childish is in itself rather crass.  Green then goes on to glorify INNOCENT as if they were some Godsend organisation.  If the truth be known their success are few and far between in the 19 years they have been operating.

Why am I not surprised that Andrew Green and INNOCENT have joined forces with Billy Middleton's Wrongly Accused Person organisation to form the National Joint Enterprise Casework Service (NJEC).  I fear for true victims of miscarriages of justice as they are being sucked into this vacuum and will ultimately simply become pawns in their pathetic power games.

[Kevin Craigie]

 

When I watched The House of Commons evidence session I despaired at such a unique opportunity being squandered. The answers presented were not correct and had those smug M.P's almost falling off their chairs. Prompted to elaborate, the "delegates" as they like to be called stared at the floor and sipped some more water !
Those questions were simple, and they were practically pleading with you to give them hard evidence. Not one shred was offered. I sent them written representations which spelled out the arguments backed with evidence. They were accepted. I still honestly believe that these "delegates" think they have accomplished something. I now predict they shall join forces to try and attack me again. No one will ever silence Kevin Craigie

[Kevin Craigie]

 8-)(--)

The reason these groups proclaiming to be able to assist victims of a miscarriage of justice never succeed is quite simple. They spend most of their time attacking one another and those individuals within them. Their actual "mandate" is unrealistic as they do not have the necessary knowledge and experience to genuinely assist people. They claim to represent several innocent people, but only voice their concerns about a select few cases. They do not care whether or not the alleged MOJ is genuine or not ! So the real innocent people are clustered among those who are evidently guilty, which causes more damage. No wonder Politicians appease them.

[puglove]

8-)(--)

The reason these groups proclaiming to be able to assist victims of a miscarriage of justice never succeed is quite simple. They spend most of their time attacking one another and those individuals within them. Their actual "mandate" is unrealistic as they do not have the necessary knowledge and experience to genuinely assist people. They claim to represent several innocent people, but only voice their concerns about a select few cases. They do not care whether or not the alleged MOJ is genuine or not ! So the real innocent people are clustered among those who are evidently guilty, which causes more damage. No wonder Politicians appease them.

Good post. The scrapping and in-fighting on the Bamber forum is a joke. Most of them haven't got a clue and turn on each other like dogs. This is what people see if they research the case, point scoring, jealousy and insults. Practically nothing about Bamber.

[John]

8-)(--)

The reason these groups proclaiming to be able to assist victims of a miscarriage of justice never succeed is quite simple. They spend most of their time attacking one another and those individuals within them. Their actual "mandate" is unrealistic as they do not have the necessary knowledge and experience to genuinely assist people. They claim to represent several innocent people, but only voice their concerns about a select few cases. They do not care whether or not the alleged MOJ is genuine or not ! So the real innocent people are clustered among those who are evidently guilty, which causes more damage. No wonder Politicians appease them.

You have just described Sandra and Billy's Wrongly Accused Person Organisation to a tee.  Their attempts to be all things to all people fell flat when Adrian Prout floored them with his confession after Middleton had been proclaiming that he was innocent for months, even posting a photograph of himself on a treadmill promoting his case.

That is not the route this forum has taken.  We are quite happy to condemn those we feel are guilty according to the evidence just as we are happy to promote and argue cases for those who are probably innocent.

[John]

8-)(--)

The reason these groups proclaiming to be able to assist victims of a miscarriage of justice never succeed is quite simple. They spend most of their time attacking one another and those individuals within them. Their actual "mandate" is unrealistic as they do not have the necessary knowledge and experience to genuinely assist people. They claim to represent several innocent people, but only voice their concerns about a select few cases. They do not care whether or not the alleged MOJ is genuine or not ! So the real innocent people are clustered among those who are evidently guilty, which causes more damage. No wonder Politicians appease them.

Says the person calling themselves 'Kevin Craigie' who is one of the worst offenders of them all....!! ha ha

Stephanie, a guest can call themself whatever they like as long as they are polite and civil. Our policy is to allow a free and frank exchange of views and that will be respected.

 In any event, I thought you said you don't post on forums any more?

[Kevin Craigie]

 

I became involved with some of these groups over a year ago. I was really excited, believing what they were telling me and what their intentions were. It soon became quite clear that what they were saying was in stark contrast to what they were actually doing. I spent several months studying a suitcase full of peoples cases. That was a demanding and very unpleasant task. However, how can you possibly assist anyone without knowing their case ? I concluded that less than 20 were actually innocent as they were proclaiming. My conclusions were objective.

These organisations such as JENGBA, WRONGLY ACCUSED and INNOCENT are driven by one thing and that is massive ego's which demand even crave constant attention.

My conscience will not allow me to become silent. The consequences being, people in despair are then given false hope and empty promises. They also suffer the reality of being innocent yet convicted of a horrendous crime which they may not have even committed.

I wont be responding to Stephanie Hall's posts as to do so would not only divert my attention but result in adolescent slagging matches. I have seen her ostracise herself on many other forums.

[puglove]

8-)(--)

The reason these groups proclaiming to be able to assist victims of a miscarriage of justice never succeed is quite simple. They spend most of their time attacking one another and those individuals within them. Their actual "mandate" is unrealistic as they do not have the necessary knowledge and experience to genuinely assist people. They claim to represent several innocent people, but only voice their concerns about a select few cases. They do not care whether or not the alleged MOJ is genuine or not ! So the real innocent people are clustered among those who are evidently guilty, which causes more damage. No wonder Politicians appease them.

Good post. The scrapping and in-fighting on the Bamber forum is a joke. Most of them haven't got a clue and turn on each other like dogs. This is what people see if they research the case, point scoring, jealousy and insults. Practically nothing about Bamber.

Always Preece and Belton   

[John]

I became involved with some of these groups over a year ago. I was really excited, believing what they were telling me and what their intentions were. It soon became quite clear that what they were saying was in stark contrast to what they were actually doing. I spent several months studying a suitcase full of peoples cases. That was a demanding and very unpleasant task. However, how can you possibly assist anyone without knowing their case ? I concluded that less than 20 were actually innocent as they were proclaiming. My conclusions were objective.

These organisations such as JENGBA, WRONGLY ACCUSED and INNOCENT are driven by one thing and that is massive ego's which demand even crave constant attention.

My conscience will not allow me to become silent. The consequences being, people in despair are then given false hope and empty promises. They also suffer the reality of being innocent yet convicted of a horrendous crime which they may not have even committed.

I wont be responding to Stephanie Hall's posts as to do so would not only divert my attention but result in adolescent slagging matches. I have seen her ostracise herself on many other forums.

I mean't to come back to this post but I got sidetracked with all the other stuff going on.  I quite agree with what you say above.   I saw a piece by Michael Naughton of the Innocent Network Uk where he had been talking to Radio 4 about the Sam Hallam case and the other many hundreds still in prison which shouldn't be.  What about the many thousands of miscarriage of justice cases of people who have been released?  Has Naughton conveniently forgotten about them?

How many cases has Naughton and his team seen through to a successful conclusion anyway...can someone tell me? 

Can they be counted on two hands, one hand or not at all?    8-)(--)

For all the resources he seems to have at his disposal and all the centres supposedly working on hundreds of cases one wonders just what the hell they are doing because winning cases is not on the agenda.

All they ever seem to do is have meetings and talk.  I suppose what else can you expect from a bunch of academics who have never seen the inside of a prison cell let alone spend years inside one. 

Talk is cheap...action takes a little more effort!

[Kevin Craigie]

When I worked at Citizens Advice Bureau they had meetings as they were necessary. They would discuss, plan and have an impressive format within the hour.

When I went to some of these organisations meetings, they  would go round in circles all morning and then continue into late afternoon. Some people attending would have their heads on the table, like bored  schoolkids at their desk. Then at the next meeting, the same process yet again with nothing being decided, nothing accomplished. People would understandably abandon them. Anyone vocal enough to remotely disagree were rapidly pounced upon, never to dare speak up again.

I'm not slagging them off, I'm simply being honest.

[Admin]

When I worked at Citizens Advice Bureau they had meetings as they were necessary. They would discuss, plan and have an impressive format within the hour.

When I went to some of these organisations meetings, they  would go round in circles all morning and then continue into late afternoon. Some people attending would have their heads on the table, like bored  schoolkids at their desk. Then at the next meeting, the same process yet again with nothing being decided, nothing accomplished. People would understandably abandon them. Anyone vocal enough to remotely disagree were rapidly pounced upon, never to dare speak up again.

I'm not slagging them off, I'm simply being honest.

Some of these academics have enormous ego's.  A few months behind bars would soon reduce that somewhat.

[Nicholas]

I think that document signed by Andrew Green is pathetic.  Talk about trying to have a go at JENGBA and as for accusing them of being deliberately hostile and childish is in itself rather crass.  Green then goes on to glorify INNOCENT as if they were some Godsend organisation.  If the truth be known their success are few and far between in the 19 years they have been operating.

Why am I not surprised that Andrew Green and INNOCENT have joined forces with Billy Middleton's Wrongly Accused Person organisation to form the National Joint Enterprise Casework Service (NJEC).  I fear for true victims of miscarriages of justice as they are being sucked into this vacuum and will ultimately simply become pawns in their pathetic power games.

A few years old I know but does anyone know where I can find the research results of the NJEC? Have they been published?

Research
We intend to use the information contained in the cases for research purposes, to be carried out by members of the casework team. From the outset the team will include scholars (see above) who have a track record of qualitative research into miscarriage of justice cases, and who, like the rest of the team, have personal experience of involvement in joint enterprise cases that have led to the conviction of innocent people.
We will only use cases for research purposes with the clear permission of those whose cases they are. We will only identify the persons concerned if they wish us to do so.
We will use the information from the cases to discover how the use of the joint enterprise law by police, prosecutors and judges leads to the conviction of innocent people. We will aim to explain how the law has been developed with the result that it now has these effects, exposing the root cause of the problems we find in the cases.
We hope to attract funding for our research, which may be carried out by individuals who are members of our casework team and in conjunction with an established university department.
Our research results will be made freely available for everyone to use. We hope that they will be used to change how the general public view joint enterprise prosecutions, through media coverage that is more sympathetic to the victims' point of view.
We hope that judges and prosecutors will become more aware of how easily injustice can occur in joint enterprise prosecutions, and take steps to prevent injustices. As a result, the police will have to work harder and better to find out who really is guilty.
We hope that when politicians change the law, they will be better informed about the dangers of the present law, and make better law as a consequence http://www.mojuk.org.uk/WMAI/jointenterprisemark2.htm


Links of interest & further evidence of 'those outside prison fighting one another':
"Protest group West Midlands Against Injustice was set up by Melda Wilks https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-13695895

https://innocent.org.uk/author/greenanarchist/

https://unitedagainstinjustice.org.uk

https://unitedagainstinjustice.org.uk/about/

"Dr Andrew Green was educated at Oxford and Keele and holds a doctorate in criminology from the latter. He became interested in criminal justice following his move to Sheffield in 1989 and in 1993 he founded the organisation INNOCENT. INNOCENT assists people who claim to have been convicted of crimes they did not commit, and their families and supporters, who are its members, and it continues to meet regularly. In 2001 he became a founder of United Against Injustice. In 2012 he was invited by Professor Claire McGourlay to assist with the Innocence Project at the University of Sheffield School of Law. The project has now become the Miscarriages of Justice Review Centre and Andrew holds the post of Lecturer in Clinical Legal Education. http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/training/forrest-conference/forrest-2015/abstracts/when-is-fresh-evidence-fresh-and-true

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/law-students-take-aim-at-miscarriages-of-justice/5064048.article

http://www.cleo-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MJRA_content-public_v02_171129.pdf

https://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/futureoflaw/2018/02/national-training-conference-on-investigating-miscarriages-of-justice-2018/

https://www.legalcheek.com/2016/04/legal-commentator-voices-concerns-over-challenges-facing-university-innocence-projects-in-damning-new-article/

Michael Naughton says:
April 5, 2016 at 11:11 am
I fully support this letter and the questions that it poses.
A small team of us are currently working on our response to a CCRC Statement of Reasons not to refer our clients case, which is also based on a desktop review and profoundly weak reasoning and/or arguments for NOT undertaking a more expansive investigation nor, crucially, the dna testing that a leading forensic scientist specialising in dna and bodily fluids recommended in our application.
Our client has been in prison for over 18 years on a 14 year tariff for joint enterprise murder.
There is no reliable evidence of his guilt and we believe him to be an innocent man.
We await with interest any answers that this open letter may receive.
Julie Price says:
April 20, 2016 at 6:36 pm
Helga – there was a discussion in Cardiff last weekend about common issues faced by those doing pro bono casework, so “working with others” is very much on people’s agendas, and collaborations are happening. We are all acutely aware of the very real problem of people seeking help not knowing where to try to find that help, although it’s clear that demand exceeds supply. Michael will know better than most of the problems of trying to provide some sort of “clearing house”, and no-one thinks it’s going to be easy or fully achievable.
Sheffield (working with the Centre for Criminal Appeals) are developing a portal that will hopefully start to plug the gap left by INUK in that regard, but in a different way – bottom up, rather than top down. The new portal will also aim to be a hub for resources/communications in other ways – another need identified by Michael which he initiated via INUK. There will inevitably be teething problems, and how to make it sustainable without relying on just one or two people will be a core driver.
As discussions advance, the net will no doubt widen and develop organically to meet needs, and to embrace expertise. It is uncertain exactly how these loose collaborations will evolve, but some sort of democratic collective (whatever that might be) is likely. You, and Michael, will be welcome to join in to enhance constructive discussions based on both your extensive experience, to avoid reinventing wheels and to help in ensuring that lessons learned to date are taken on board.
No doubt progress will be reported via the Justice Gap along the way
Michael Naughton says:
April 22, 2016 at 3:02 pm
Julie,
This reply is very vague, which seems unusual for you.
Can you give more detail of who is involved and how others can get involved if they want to and what timeframe are you working to for the new collective to be operational? Do you have a website? Any forthcoming conferences planned for people to learn more?
It seems clear that some sort of working together between the universities doing pro bono innocence work is required and also that it will pretty much almost entirely emulate the INUK model, albeit with different universities/people at the helm, which really makes us wonder why others failed to step up to take on core roles with INUK when asked.
In any event, this is past history now and we/INUK genuinely do wish you well as innocence projects can achieve more for innocent victims of wrongful convictions by working together than in isolation.
As with all things, though, we are judged by deeds not words and you and others have been discussing collaborations for several years now and it will be good to hear how you are making progress.
Julie Price says:
April 25, 2016 at 5:34 pm
Michael – without hesitation, I (and others, I know) unconditionally acknowledge and celebrate your huge personal investment in bringing innocence projects to the UK. You had the vision and energy to put into action something that was needed then, and which sadly remains even more necessary today.
There are many reasons why INUK did not work out as then structured, including the unsustainable burden on one or two people. Colleagues from five universities did offer to “step up”, but perhaps by that point it was too late for you? But as you say, that’s history.
If you prefer, I am happy to have a private email exchange with you if that can be productive and constructive. I can then share what I know about progress on collaborations which are happening, not just being talked about. I can also then ask you some questions.
There is no “helm”, and there is no “organisation”. Those of us collaborating informally want to learn valuable lessons from INUK. The communication mechanism for universities working in this area is currently the Clinical Legal Education Organisation (CLEO) criminal appeals email distribution list. This is not a closed shop. You were sent at least 2 emails inviting you to join that list, and you have in the past asked not to be engaged in collaborations that may or may not be happening, which I have respected. But if you have changed your mind then please add yourself to this list. If you want to make a constructive contribution to discussions, your vast experience would be very welcome.
Moving forward, it will be important to establish (in a way that does not inadvertently mislead) what INUK now is, and is not, particularly if “it” is now doing casework unlike in the past. Thank you for the good wishes from “we/INUK” – it would be helpful to know exactly who is behind those wishes. The organisations currently collaborating informally are all working to some degree with students. Is this the case with “INUK” now that the Bristol project is closed?
Those in Sheffield working on the portal hope to have something in place online over the summer. It will contain some way of facilitating universities and others working in the field to communicate, but the exact detail of how this will happen has not yet been resolved. It is a work in progress.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/12875/

"Michael Naughton says:
April 6, 2016 at 4:15 pm
References to INUK are incorrect and unnecessary and merely detract from an otherwise reasonable letter, imho.
Don’t you agree that it is time to move on (INUK ceased member ship in 2014 and its reasons are well documented and fully transparent on the INUK website) and be judged by your own deeds and their outcomes as any other independent entity?
Re your own transparency: how many cases are you working on? (I do know how many INUK referred to you in the 8 years Sheffield was a member). How long have you been working on them? How many requests/applications have you made to the police or CPS for access to exhibits or biological samples for testing by new techniques? How many applications have you made to the CCRC on behalf of clients? How many were referred back to the Court of Appeal? How many were overturned? etc.
Is this not what really matters to innocent victims of wrongful convictions and imprisonment and their families and the test of a successful and effective cle enterprise?
Claire McGourlay says:
April 7, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Although this letter was not an open letter about you here is our answer to you.
Since you took an arbitrary decision two years ago to close down the network that linked innocence projects (rather than reform it into a democratic mutual support organization), you are not entitled to statistics from us (particularly when you tweet about how useless we all are-very unnecessary in my opinion and I can’t reply as you have blocked me and my students) and yes we have moved on and are doing very well indeed.
We have no fear of transparency, so here is some information.
We have 13 active clients, not including dormant cases i.e. those that we can’t work on, or which are with the CCRC.
We also did a significant amount of work on Danny Major’s case but no longer can as we’ve been prevented by the intervention of Greater Manchester Police.
How long do we work on a case? Varies, and as you well know, is out of our control: delays caused by CPS, lawyers, clients, discoveries of potential fresh evidence that have to be followed up, clients becoming uncontactable at times.
Requests/applications to the police or CPS for access to exhibits or biological samples for testing by new techniques? Irrelevant in most of our cases (only 1 of our cases involved this).
Applications to the CCRC? One refusal and 3 cases currently under consideration by CCRC. Additionally, actively compiling applications on behalf of 4 clients. Others are delayed due to new lines of inquiry opening up which are likely to produce additional significant fresh evidence, which we are pursuing on the instructions of our clients.
As you are well aware there are no simple answers to such complex questions where complex and detailed responses are required. We do not need to spend further time on this, as we have cases to work on. All our clients are informed about how we work when we offer to take on their cases, and kept informed of progress or problems when they occur. We also publish an annual report and anyone is welcome to it.
In a similar spirit of transparency, I trust that you will answer my following questions:
1.   In May 2013 (the latest time for which the Inquiry newsletter – edition 8 – posts such data), INUK claims that 110 cases had been referred to member projects, and there was a further waiting list of 113. Please let us know how those figures are broken down and what happened to those on the waiting list when you disbanded INUK.
2.   As regards INUK’s current status, there is clear confusion about what INUK now is, and the website is misleading. It is not a membership organisation; it is not a network; it does not represent the UK. Will you please urgently amend the website wording to clarify that confusion so that vulnerable people looking for help know exactly what INUK now is and what it is not?
3.   You say you are doing casework. How many cases are you working on, and what stages are they at? Who is doing this casework?
Helga says:
April 7, 2016 at 4:50 pm
We are all fighting the same war. it’s such a shame we cannot help each other instead of arguing.
Support groups for those falsely accused of sexual offences, especially historic cases, work together and share information. Isn’t this how Miscarriages of Justice groups / university law schools, wherever they are, should be too.
This work is hard enough without infighting.
I address this to Mike as well as Claire. I have no doubt that all projects (or whatever they are called) work very hard to right terrible wrongs. Arguing helps nobody.
Michael Naughton says:
April 7, 2016 at 7:37 pm
You are fully aware of why INUK ceased membership and it is recorded on the INUK website so I am somewhat at a loss about the motives behind your questions. Nonetheless, for the record, I refute the claim that I took an arbitrary decision to cease INoUK membership and also the claim that INUK was not democratic. INUK’s current status is very clearly articulated on the website to my mind. Our casework is confidential unless and until cases are referred by the CCRC when they will be made public.
Julie Price says:
April 8, 2016 at 11:36 am
Michael – Claire’s casework is confidential in the same way as yours (and everyone’s), so your answer is not similarly transparent. We have also been asked about the fate of the 113 people on the 2013 INUK waiting list, so that’s a genuine question too.
We all (genuinely) raise our hats to you for your fantastic original inspiration and hard work that started this whole thing off. But INUK’s website is far from clear that INUK is now just you (if it’s not just you, then it needs to say who is involved). That issue needs to be resolved urgently in the interests of avoiding innocent or accidental misrepresentations, and in accordance with your ongoing ethical and moral responsibility based on INUK’s rightful place in history.
It also must be in everyone’s interests to avoid a regular drip-feed of Twitter snipes and pinned “poetry” – let’s hope that is now in the past, and that your response to my open letter to the CCRC might instead mark a welcome return to constructive re-engagement in the interests of the bigger picture.
We can then all take on board Helga’s wise words…
Michael Naughton says:
April 10, 2016 at 6:56 pm
Hi Helga,
I honestly wish you were correct and that things were so straight-forward.
Alas, after 10 years of trying to work together with allegedly like-minded people with the same core aim – help to get innocent people to overturn their convictions and clear their names – it is clear to me that there are many different motives that are also at play and which can undermine what I think of as the core aim – careers, student recruitment, cv’s, vanity, to name but a few.
As you well know, INUK was set up as with the express aim of aiding working together but, as is documented on the INUK website, members generally failed to get involved on any level (even attending meetings and training events for a step too far for most) and casework was negligible for many.
Inevitably, little or no progress was made on the cases referred to the various innocence projects by INUK.
INUK ceased membership as others did not want to get involved to work together to sort things out and we did not feel that it was ethical to keep referring cases if they were tending not to be worked on in the face of mounting complaints from prisoners that they were dissatisfied with the innocence projects that we had referred their cases too.
I think that it is instructive that the innocence projects, or whatever names they now call themselves, have not as yet formed some sort of new collective if they want to work together?
Wullie Beck says:
April 14, 2016 at 12:50 am
If I was an appellant to CCRC while Graham Zellick was a member I would be asking for a review of their decisions.
He told delgetaes at SCCRC conference in Glasgow that single commissioners decided cases in England.
Wullie Beck says:
April 14, 2016 at 12:53 am
I am also left wondering exactly how many INUK events Your University attended Claire ?
Claire Mcgourlay says:
April 14, 2016 at 12:42 pm
Almost every singe one of them and with a lot of my students in tow. We even organized one conference.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/open-letter-ccrc-2/