Its from a book about the CCRC. I cant give a link nor can I attach a copy as it is too large. It has various authors, but that section I pasted is by "Dr Andrew Green" Who teaches law at the university of Sheffield.
Here is quote taken from an appeal that took place in 2008
"The Court has in the past accepted that section 23 may apply to expert evidence, and we would not wish to circumscribe the operation of a statutory rule enacted to protect defendants against the risk of wrongful conviction. But it seems unlikely that the section was framed with expert evidence prominently in mind. The requirement in subsection (2)(a) that the evidence should appear to be capable of belief applies more aptly to factual evidence than to expert opinion, which may or may not be acceptable or persuasive but which is unlikely to be thought to be incapable of belief in any ordinary sense. The giving of a reasonable explanation for failure to adduce the evidence before the jury again applies more aptly to factual evidence of which a party was unaware, or could not adduce, than to expert evidence, since if one expert is unavailable to testify at a trial a party would ordinarily be expect to call another unless circumstances prevented this. Expert witnesses, although inevitably varying in standing and experience, are interchangeable in a way in which factual witnesses are not. It would clearly subvert the trial possess if a defendant, convicted at trial, were to be generally free to mount on appeal an expert case which, if sound, could and should have been advanced before the jury. If it is said that the only expert witness in an established field whose opinion supports a certain defence was unavailable to testify at the trial, that may be thought (save in unusual circumstances) to reflect on the acceptability of that opinion."
The power to receive fresh evidence is discretionary, so it depends in part who the judges are and probably what mood they are in that day.
"What NJEC plans to do
We would assess cases for their eligibility. This depends on two matters:
- That the person seeking our help (the applicant) has been convicted through use of the joint enterprise law (see above) rather than a similar law such as conspiracy or any other law. The words 'joint enterprise' or 'common purpose' should appear in the trial summing up, applied specifically to the applicant as a defendant.
- That the person claims to be innocent of the crime of which she or he is convicted, under the law as it stands at the time of the conviction.
This means that we would be prepared to help people who may be guilty of a less serious offence than the offence of which they were convicted (such as theft rather than murder).
We will consider cases where the law may have been applied unjustly, such as those in which prosecution evidence appears to be clearly inadequate.
But we would not be able to help people who are guilty of a serious crime according to the law, however unfair we may think the law is: for example, people who play a minor part in a crime but know that the crime is going to take place.
We would next assess whether we can offer assistance with the applicant's case. We may either work on the case ourselves, or we may refer it to another organisation if we think that organisation could do more to help than we can. We may continue to work on a case together with another organisation, such as a university student innocence project.
We would keep all applicants informed about the progress of their case and we would seek their approval, suggestions and permission before undertaking any important work or referring their case to another organisation. By 'applicants' we mean applicants and their families or other supporters acting with the consent of the applicants.
How quickly we can work and respond to applications depends on how many applications we receive and how many competent people we can find to join our team. We cannot make any promises about how quickly we will respond, and if we cannot handle cases for practical reasons, we will tell people honestly what the problem is.
All applications, supporting material and any fresh material we obtain will be treated as confidential, unless we have obtained permission from applicants to share the material or use it for agreed publicity purposes. But it should be noted that none of the casework team are qualified lawyers and none of our communications are legally privileged.
This is a free service. We will not ask applicants, their families or their supporters for money to support the work we do. If we find additional sources of help, such as experts and lawyers, we will aim to find these at no cost to applicants. We believe that innocent victims of miscarriages of justice should not have to pay to put right the mistakes of the criminal justice system. In our experience, casework takes a lot of time but does not need much money. We hope to obtain some help from sympathetic organisations.
Who we areAndrew Green
Andrew has 20 years' experience of analysing miscarriage of justice cases, many of them involving joint enterprise. He works mainly with INNOCENT on appeals and applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with some successes. He is Chairperson of United Against Injustice and Deputy Director of the University of Sheffield School of Law Innocence Project. His PhD was awarded for a thesis on the construction of wrongful convictions. He is the author of Power Resistance Knowledge: the Epistemology of Policing.
Ange Drozdowski
Ange has been involved with United Against Injustice for over 8 years, and has been part of the planning and running of the National UAI days on the last five occasions, including chairing the meeting in Birmingham in 2011. She is an active member of Innocent and Yorkshire and Humberside against Injustice and will consult with members privately if they are nervous of speaking in a group. Ange is a qualified plumber and plumbing instructor and taught a practical plumbing course in HMP Ranby for two and a half years.
Ashleigh Towers
Ashleigh campaigns on behalf of her brother Jordan Towers, who was wrongly convicted under Joint Enterprise for murder. For the past 5 years she has worked hard to progress Jordan's case. She is part of team that has secured a Judicial Review in the near future for Jordan, which hopefully will lead to an appeal against his conviction. Ashleigh has experience in working closely with solicitors, advising them and attending meetings. She has experience with CCRC applications and extensive knowledge of Joint Enterprise and Human Rights law. Ashleigh lobbied the Government on the yourGov website in relation to Joint Enterprise which played a crucial part in Lord Ouseley raising the subject with Parliament, and which played a significant role in the Parliamentary Justice Committee's decision to inquire into the Joint Enterprise doctrine. Ashleigh also has experience in advising others on various subjects in relation to the law where a miscarriage of justice has occurred and will give any case she works on as much hard work and dedication as she has given her brother's and others alike.
Audra McKenna
Currently campaigning on behalf of her son Wesley Porter wrongly convicted under joint enterprise for murder. Audra has experience liaising with solicitors and communicating with appropriate contacts for advice and information on various specialist aspects of a given case. What she doesn't know herself, she seeks to find out, and is never afraid to draw on the knowledge of others in the team. The compassion and commitment she shows in her 9-5 job is evident in the work she does for others suffering injustice. Founder member of AIM (Against Injustice Merseyside) and represents it at United Against Injustice (UAI).
Billy Middleton
Billy founded the Wrongly Accused Person organisation in 2009 following his own experience with the justice system. He has been reviewing cases ever since and where appropriate helping people highlight their plights to in a way capable of changing public opinion with some success. Many are Joint Enterprise case. He has assisted with appeals and applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission liaising with solicitors, expert witnesses and the Media.
Sandra Lean
Sandra Lean has 9 years experience of investigating and researching wrongful convictions. She works with individuals and families, as well as professionals in the legal and voluntary sectors, assisting with appeals and applications to the S/CCRC. A PhD candidate, funded by the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR) at Stirling University, she is about to submit a thesis on the gap between public perceptions of the CJS and its actual operations. She has a specialist paralegal qualification in criminal law and is the author of No Smoke; The Shocking Truth about British Justice. Sandra is a trustee of the charity organisation Wrongly Accused Person.
Each member of the team will take on a case load that she or he thinks is practical. Casework will be discussed regularly with other team members, who will support and learn from each other. If a case is taken on by a member who appears to be less experienced than others, that case will be reviewed to the same standard as any other case through these sharing and consultation arrangements.
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.
I have strong doubts regarding Dr Andrew Green's judgement http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=89.msg766#msg766and I concur with what John states here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=89.msg863#msg863"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
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=8119.0
