Imagine waking up one morning to a knock on your front door. It's the police and they'd like to talk to you. Pretty soon you're sitting in a cell facing life imprisonment for a crime you know you didn't commit. The horror of knowing your friends and family, anyone you ever loved or met can see you've been convicted of a terrible crime. Your life has been taken away and the people you care about think you're a rapist or a murderer.
It's a nightmare and one that many people could be living right now. Worse, it could happen to any of us, anytime.
Our criminal justice system is fallible, we know that. When the Guilford Four, Birmingham Six and Maguire Seven were released there was such a public outcry that the government created an entirely new organisation - the Criminal Cases Review Commission - to make sure mistakes hadn't been made elsewhere too.
This news item from the CCRC's website tells a great story, a possible miscarriage has been investigated by the CCRC and referred to the court of appeal. Simon Hall will have the opportunity to present new evidence in his defence and a potential terrible miscarriage of justice might be rectified.
What it doesn't tell you is that the evidence that might prove his innocence would not have come to light if it were not for the hard work of the Bristol University Innocence Project. The CCRC could not have done this without them, and more worryingly, would not have.
So the CCRC was meant to be the solution to the problem. It was born out of the anger and fear that the high profile cases created. That anger and fear just isn't around now, miscarriages of justice aren't getting the same attention they once did. If the CCRC isn't up to the task, without the public outcry seen before how can we hope for the change we obviously still need to save innocent people?
When something happens once it's unique, startling and newsworthy. It happens again and we can't believe it, how could it possibly happen again? How could we let it? Then it happens again and again, it's a trend. The anger and amazement fades, it becomes commonplace and accepted.
We've begun to accept that this is just the way it is. The system will get it wrong and sometimes the wrong person will be imprisoned for a crime, sometimes the real criminals escape justice.
What we need is to make this a huge issue again. Raise awareness and stir things up. Let's all get radical.
Students! Remember the days when there were protest marches and riots? When students were revolutionary and it was about more than just getting a degree.
Journalists! What greater moral calling do we have than finding injustice and exposing it to the light of day?
All of us, everyone of us. We need to read about miscarriages of justice, we need to talk about miscarriages of justice. We need to be outraged every time the system gets it wrong. We need to shout about every mistake at the top of our voices, so next time they get it right.
Get angry. Make a big deal of it. It is a big deal.
Showing posts with label Miscarriages of Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miscarriages of Justice. Show all posts
Monday, 29 March 2010
Friday, 19 March 2010
Journalists should fight injustice
'We must revive the link between investigative journalism and miscarriages of justice' – Dr Eamonn O' Neill
We've been working on an innocence project for nearly six months now and I'm not exaggerating in the slightest when I say it's been one of the most exhilarating experiences of my life. Working on a case is addictive, I've spent untold hours pouring over witness statements and forensic evidence. Fire reports, crime scene photos, e-fits and psychological profiles. Slowly, a picture of events that took place over ten years ago is starting to come together. It's captivating.
I caught the bug at last October's INUK training event. The personal stories of miscarriages of justice we heard were infuriating and heartbreaking, the passion we saw in other members of the INUK was inspiring. Last week, myself and other students from the University of Winchester attended a similar event.
The chair and first speaker was Dr Eamonn O' Neill, a freelance investigative journalist and one hell of a role model for journalism students. He opened with a talk that made the journalists in the audience sit up that little bit straighter and swell with pride. The Innocence Network wants the skills we have to offer and thanks to the example set by Dr O' Neill, we want to give them.
He reminded us of the long tradition of journalists exposing the truth and freeing the wrongfully convicted, the late Ludovic Kennedy being a prime example. The BBC TV show Rough Justice, that resulted in 15 quashed convictions, was axed in 2007. According to Dr O' Neill this is just another symptom that there has been a decline of coverage in recent years, a dearth of journalists willing to put the time into investigating cases.
When Winchester first joined the INUK we were a little apprehensive about being the only university running cases without any law students. Now I choose not to see that weakness, instead I look at the strengths that journalists bring. Investigative journalists have incisive minds to spot what's important, they really want to get to the bottom of things. They have curiosity and persistence, a strong sense of purpose, a feeling of outrage about wrongdoing and a moral conviction to find the truth. They're prepared to be very unpopular and are determined enough to knock on the 16th door in the rain when they're tired and the first 15 doors have led them nowhere. They have courage and put tough questions to powerful people.
I think those are exactly the qualities needed to expose a miscarriage of justice.
'The system is process over truth, law before people' – Dr Michael Naughton
The founder of the INUK, Dr Michael Naughton then took the floor. He reminded us of the importance of factual innocence over legal innocence. As an innocence project we should be concerned with finding the truth, whether that means our client is innocent or guilty. We're not looking to free a prisoner on a legal technicality, rather find concrete evidence to prove that they either did or did not commit the crime they are imprisoned for. Circumstantial evidence is the enemy.
He argues that the current system is flawed and I'm inclined to agree with him.
'When there is no hope, there is always hope' - Mark Newby
Mark Newby was the keynote speaker at the conference. As a solicitor he's exposed injustice and freed the wrongfully convicted. He took the opportunity to take us through five of his cases and in the process showed how determination and an eye for detail can save lives.
He gave us a blow by blow account of how he and his team proved factual innocence. I took notes and Winchester's innocence project will be stronger for it.
It was a fantastic day and I came away with a host of ideas I can't wait to implement into our project. Growing up, many of the moral absolutes I held have been shattered by the reality of our society and justice system. It's my work with the Innocence Network UK that has convinced me some absolutes are worth clinging to. There is right and wrong, there is guilty and innocent. Sometimes it can be as simple as that.
(Photos courtesy of United Against Injustice)
We've been working on an innocence project for nearly six months now and I'm not exaggerating in the slightest when I say it's been one of the most exhilarating experiences of my life. Working on a case is addictive, I've spent untold hours pouring over witness statements and forensic evidence. Fire reports, crime scene photos, e-fits and psychological profiles. Slowly, a picture of events that took place over ten years ago is starting to come together. It's captivating.
I caught the bug at last October's INUK training event. The personal stories of miscarriages of justice we heard were infuriating and heartbreaking, the passion we saw in other members of the INUK was inspiring. Last week, myself and other students from the University of Winchester attended a similar event.
The chair and first speaker was Dr Eamonn O' Neill, a freelance investigative journalist and one hell of a role model for journalism students. He opened with a talk that made the journalists in the audience sit up that little bit straighter and swell with pride. The Innocence Network wants the skills we have to offer and thanks to the example set by Dr O' Neill, we want to give them.
He reminded us of the long tradition of journalists exposing the truth and freeing the wrongfully convicted, the late Ludovic Kennedy being a prime example. The BBC TV show Rough Justice, that resulted in 15 quashed convictions, was axed in 2007. According to Dr O' Neill this is just another symptom that there has been a decline of coverage in recent years, a dearth of journalists willing to put the time into investigating cases.
When Winchester first joined the INUK we were a little apprehensive about being the only university running cases without any law students. Now I choose not to see that weakness, instead I look at the strengths that journalists bring. Investigative journalists have incisive minds to spot what's important, they really want to get to the bottom of things. They have curiosity and persistence, a strong sense of purpose, a feeling of outrage about wrongdoing and a moral conviction to find the truth. They're prepared to be very unpopular and are determined enough to knock on the 16th door in the rain when they're tired and the first 15 doors have led them nowhere. They have courage and put tough questions to powerful people.
I think those are exactly the qualities needed to expose a miscarriage of justice.
'The system is process over truth, law before people' – Dr Michael Naughton
The founder of the INUK, Dr Michael Naughton then took the floor. He reminded us of the importance of factual innocence over legal innocence. As an innocence project we should be concerned with finding the truth, whether that means our client is innocent or guilty. We're not looking to free a prisoner on a legal technicality, rather find concrete evidence to prove that they either did or did not commit the crime they are imprisoned for. Circumstantial evidence is the enemy.
He argues that the current system is flawed and I'm inclined to agree with him.
'When there is no hope, there is always hope' - Mark Newby
Mark Newby was the keynote speaker at the conference. As a solicitor he's exposed injustice and freed the wrongfully convicted. He took the opportunity to take us through five of his cases and in the process showed how determination and an eye for detail can save lives.
He gave us a blow by blow account of how he and his team proved factual innocence. I took notes and Winchester's innocence project will be stronger for it.
It was a fantastic day and I came away with a host of ideas I can't wait to implement into our project. Growing up, many of the moral absolutes I held have been shattered by the reality of our society and justice system. It's my work with the Innocence Network UK that has convinced me some absolutes are worth clinging to. There is right and wrong, there is guilty and innocent. Sometimes it can be as simple as that.
(Photos courtesy of United Against Injustice)
Monday, 19 October 2009
Miscarriages of Justice, the Guildford Four and Innocence Network UK
In October 1975 Paul Hill, Gerald Conlon, Patrick Armstrong and Carole Richardson were convicted of murder and other charges and given life sentences. It would be 15 years before the convictions were successfully appealed and their innocence admitted.
For our final year project, instead of a standard dissertation, journalism students in my year at Winchester university will be starting an Innocence Project. We will be taking on cases like the Guildford Four in an attempt to find new evidence that might help the accused win an appeal.
The Guildford Four were tried and convicted of two pub bombings in a time of political tension surrounding Ireland and the IRA. The conviction remained upheld despite new evidence coming forward. A witness provided an alibi for Carole Richardson that was collaborated by photographic evidence, but the prosecution developed a dubious possible sequence of events by which Richardson could have been traveled at high speed across town to still commit the bombing. Soon after, four confirmed IRA members were caught and convicted for other bombings but confessed to the Guildford bombings too. This too was dismissed as a conspiracy to release the Guildford Four. It finally took evidence that the police had doctored notes used in court to cause the judges to rethink the case.
Along with the case of the Birmingham Six it was a shocking reminder to the public that our criminal justice system is fallible. It also raised many questions about police procedure and put doubts in many minds as to the honesty and integrity of the police service in the 1970's. There were accusations that the police used beatings, intimidation and threats against family and friends to illicit confessions from the accused. These confessions were central to the prosecution's cases and in the Guildford Four trial was essentially the entire case after the other evidence was called into question.
If these convictions were wrong, how many other people could be falsely imprisoned right now?
It was because these high profile court rulings were quashed that the government created the CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission), an organisation with the intention of reviewing cases with possible grounds to appeal. According to the CCRC's website as of 30th September 2009 they have received 12109 applications. 398 of these made it to court and 116 were upheld. This means that under 1% of applications result in a successful appeal.
There are two possible reasons for this. Firstly, the system works. Our prosecution system is strong and we get the right people convicted of the right crimes, there are just a tiny number of cases that fall through the cracks and those people are saved from wrongful imprisonment by the appeals process. Or secondly, mistakes are being made and the process for rectifying them is flawed. Obviously the first option is infinity more appealing and probably much more likely, but without constant checking and questioning we can't be certain this is the case. The Innocence Network UK and student innocence projects are other checks we can use.
INUK was started in September 2004 by Dr Michael Naughton and was inspired by a similar project that proved successful in America. Naughton teaches criminal law at the university of Bristol and specialises in miscarriages of justice. He started the first dedicated innocence project in the UK.
The students in my year will split into small groups of three or four and be assigned cases that meet certain criteria. The person we will be working with will have received a life sentence, effectively meaning they were convicted of either murder or rape. Our job will be to test the strength of that conviction. This will be real opportunity to do some investigative journalism.
When given a life imprisonment, usually parole is only granted once the individual admits their guilt. If the chance occurs and they still maintain their innocence then that person is either a dedicated (and foolish) liar or they genuinely believe their own innocence, choosing to remain imprisoned purely on principle. It is these cases we will be especially interested in.
This promises to be an extremely exciting project and I can't wait to get started.
For our final year project, instead of a standard dissertation, journalism students in my year at Winchester university will be starting an Innocence Project. We will be taking on cases like the Guildford Four in an attempt to find new evidence that might help the accused win an appeal.
The Guildford Four were tried and convicted of two pub bombings in a time of political tension surrounding Ireland and the IRA. The conviction remained upheld despite new evidence coming forward. A witness provided an alibi for Carole Richardson that was collaborated by photographic evidence, but the prosecution developed a dubious possible sequence of events by which Richardson could have been traveled at high speed across town to still commit the bombing. Soon after, four confirmed IRA members were caught and convicted for other bombings but confessed to the Guildford bombings too. This too was dismissed as a conspiracy to release the Guildford Four. It finally took evidence that the police had doctored notes used in court to cause the judges to rethink the case.
Along with the case of the Birmingham Six it was a shocking reminder to the public that our criminal justice system is fallible. It also raised many questions about police procedure and put doubts in many minds as to the honesty and integrity of the police service in the 1970's. There were accusations that the police used beatings, intimidation and threats against family and friends to illicit confessions from the accused. These confessions were central to the prosecution's cases and in the Guildford Four trial was essentially the entire case after the other evidence was called into question.
If these convictions were wrong, how many other people could be falsely imprisoned right now?
It was because these high profile court rulings were quashed that the government created the CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission), an organisation with the intention of reviewing cases with possible grounds to appeal. According to the CCRC's website as of 30th September 2009 they have received 12109 applications. 398 of these made it to court and 116 were upheld. This means that under 1% of applications result in a successful appeal.
There are two possible reasons for this. Firstly, the system works. Our prosecution system is strong and we get the right people convicted of the right crimes, there are just a tiny number of cases that fall through the cracks and those people are saved from wrongful imprisonment by the appeals process. Or secondly, mistakes are being made and the process for rectifying them is flawed. Obviously the first option is infinity more appealing and probably much more likely, but without constant checking and questioning we can't be certain this is the case. The Innocence Network UK and student innocence projects are other checks we can use.
INUK was started in September 2004 by Dr Michael Naughton and was inspired by a similar project that proved successful in America. Naughton teaches criminal law at the university of Bristol and specialises in miscarriages of justice. He started the first dedicated innocence project in the UK.
The students in my year will split into small groups of three or four and be assigned cases that meet certain criteria. The person we will be working with will have received a life sentence, effectively meaning they were convicted of either murder or rape. Our job will be to test the strength of that conviction. This will be real opportunity to do some investigative journalism.
When given a life imprisonment, usually parole is only granted once the individual admits their guilt. If the chance occurs and they still maintain their innocence then that person is either a dedicated (and foolish) liar or they genuinely believe their own innocence, choosing to remain imprisoned purely on principle. It is these cases we will be especially interested in.
This promises to be an extremely exciting project and I can't wait to get started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)