“Hannah Quirk
May 6 2016 4:42pm
I wrote an article in 2007 entitled ‘Identifying Miscarriages of Justice: Why Innocence in the UK is Not the Answer’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2007.00662.x/full
I am sure that students get a great deal from the experience of working on these cases – my concern is largely for the applicants. I do not mean to disparage the efforts of those involved in this work. My concern has always been that innocence projects (a model imported from America where there is no post-appeal assistance) fit awkwardly in a legal system with a body such as the CCRC. The only route back to the Court of Appeal for those who have had one appeal is via the CCRC. An inevitably lengthy investigation by students delays this process and risks contaminating new evidence.
There are ways around this, and I understand that some projects now just prepare applications to the CCRC or work on cases that have been rejected. These are often very difficult cases – junior solicitors or barristers would not work on such serious cases. Enthusiasm is important but if I were wrongly convicted, I would prefer expertise and experience.
Identifying Miscarriages of Justice: Why Innocence in the UK is Not the Answer - Hannah Quirk
- First published: 20 August 2007
Abstract
“This article examines two contrasting proposals for the reform of criminal appeals: the government's recent proposal that the guilty should no longer have their convictions quashed on ‘technicalities’; and calls by campaigners for the Court of Appeal to consider innocence rather than the ‘safety of the conviction,’ together with their associated attempts to establish Innocence Projects in the UK. Despite the rhetorical power of ‘innocence’ as a campaigning tool, it is contended that to import such a standard into the legal system would be retrogressive and counter‐productive, both as a safeguard against wrongful convictions and in protecting the integrity of the system. In order to be meaningful, due process protections must apply to all. The government's proposals attack this principle directly; innocence campaigners risk unwittingly assisting their endeavours.
Anger at legal compensation shakeup
Clarke's bid to overhaul law on wrong convictions attacked by justice groups - 2006“Miscarriage of justice campaigners were enraged last night by plans to stop defendants walking free from the court of appeal after their convictions have been quashed on a technicality.
The announcement by the home secretary, Charles Clarke, was made as part of a package making a £5m a year cut in the £8m paid out annually in compensation to victims of miscarriages of justice. Mr Clarke said he wanted to see the change introduced in legislation as soon as possible.
One option is to introduce the Scottish "not proven" verdict into the English legal system. He said it was needed to put an end to the growth of a "small industry for the legal profession that has been giving away large amounts of money to individuals who do not deserve it".
The urgent government review will look at the statutory test used in the court of appeal to decide whether to quash a conviction. In particular, it will focus on whether an "error in the trial process" necessarily means a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Mr Clarke acknowledged that a move to a "not proven" verdict would be a major change. "It would be a radical change. We are going to have a look at it. The time has come to assess it," he said.
The package of cuts to compensation payments will cap payments at a maximum of £500,000. He is also to introduce legislation empowering the compensation assessor to make deductions from the award if there are other criminal convictions in the case. He cited the example of a man serving nine years in prison for robbery convictions who had one of them quashed by the court of appeal and went on to receive £75,000 compensation.
But the proposals have angered miscarriage of justice campaigners. Gerry Conlon, of the Guildford four, who was wrongly convicted over an IRA bombing in 1974, said he was "absolutely horrified" by the package and called the compensation cuts a "penny-pinching, vote-catching exercise".
John McManus of MOJO, the campaigning organisation set up by Paddy Hill of the Birmingham six, said he was appalled that ministers appeared to be suggesting that those whose convictions were quashed were really criminals. He claimed that in many cases technical grounds were used to quash convictions to avoid the exposure of corrupt police officers.
"If the government want to do something about this compensation bill they should prosecute the corrupt police officers who have been involved. There have been at least 150 miscarriages of justice cases in the last 15 years but no police officers have ever been prosecuted."
But Mr Clarke believes that the growing compensation bill for miscarriage of justices has more to do with the failings of the English adversarial criminal justice system. He claimed yesterday that the system encouraged highly paid barristers funded by legal aid to play courtroom games in pursuit of compensation claims far beyond what was acceptable.
"This is not really about justice or righting wrongs in a fair way," said Mr Clarke. "I think the more the legal system clearly relates to the conduct of individuals who have done things or not done things and the less it relates to the technicalities of the legal process, the better.
"What individuals want to see is a legal system which correctly finds guilty those who are guilty and acquits those who are innocent, with respect to what they did or didn't do rather than whether or not the legal process was or was not correctly followed."
The proposal was first put forward by Lord Justice Auld in his review of the criminal courts in 2001, who said that "unhappily" the 1995 Criminal Appeal Act had led to the belief among some that an unfair trial should automatically be punished with an acquittal.
It also sparked an angry reaction from opposition MPs. The Liberal Democrat shadow attorney general, Simon Hughes, said an important criminal justice proposal seemed to have been smuggled on to the agenda under cover of an announcement on compensation.
"Criminal trials are supposed to clear up questions of guilt and not encourage suspicions to linger. Any review of the law must be conducted with extreme care. There are many people in Scotland who, with good reason, have deep misgivings about the 'not proven' verdict," said Mr Hughes.
The Conservatives also voiced doubts about the "not proven" verdict, saying it had come in for much criticism in Scotland. "We have a longstanding principle in this country of being innocent until proven guilty," said Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general.
"People want certainty and I am at a loss to understand why the home secretary might think this course of action necessary."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/apr/20/constitution.ukcrime1
