Search

Drawing on interviews via letter with 64 prisoners maintaining innocence across England and Wales, this article examines the perceived institutional consequences of claiming innocence within the prison environment. A myriad of areas, ranging from everyday living conditions, risk assessment, progression to ultimately parole, are all believed to be impacted by claims of wrongful conviction. As this article illustrates, such a position is often inconsistent with Prison Service Orders and Instructions. These prisoners are thus required to engage and work within a system that is not designed for them and that they believe penalises them as a result of their claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Monatsschrift fuer Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Miscarriages of justice occur as a result of unsafe convictions and findings and inappropriate sentences. In cases involving expert psychiatric evidence it is possible that the way evidence is presented by experts or interpreted by the courts has a direct bearing on the case. Using illustrative cases from the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, advice is offered to expert psychiatric witnesses on ways to reduce the likelihood of contributing to such miscarriages of justice and on how they may assist in rectifying such miscarriages, should they occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In almost all countries worldwide, the first point of contact with the criminal justice system is with the police. A large proportion of these individuals may have vulnerabilities, such as mental health difficulties. Given the complexities associated with vulnerable suspects, such interviews may be compromised, which could lead to a miscarriage of justice. In England and Wales, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 and its accompanying Codes of Practice lay down requirements for interviewing vulnerable suspects and provide for attendance of "appropriate adults" to support communication between police and the vulnerable suspect. To date, however, their role has been underresearched.Aims/hypotheses: To explore the role of appropriate adults in police interviews and test the hypotheses, first, that appropriate adults more commonly remain passive during interview than expected from guidance and, second, that any interventions are more likely than not to follow examples in current guidance.Methods: Transcripts of police interviews conducted with suspects with possible mental disorder and an appropriate adult present (N = 27) were analysed using a specially developed coding framework.Results: Appropriate adults were significantly more likely to remain passive than to intervene, even when current guidance would suggest intervention. When they did intervene, however, such interventions were significantly more likely than not to follow from guidance than the vulnerable suspect's needs. Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984.Conclusions/implications For Practice: In our sample, appropriate adults were not fulfilling their role as outlined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 and accompanying Codes of Practice; specifically, they appeared to know what to do but not when to do it. There is a heightened risk of a miscarriage of justice in such circumstances without improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses forensic pathology and error in judiciary in Ontario. He discusses the Innocence Project, a non-government organization associated with the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law at the Yeshiva University in New York City. He also discusses the Criminal Cases Review Commission that was established in 1997 and reviewed cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The article focuses on the criminal cases review commission (CCRC) of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, an independent statutory body created by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to investigate suspected miscarriages of justice in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It mentions that CCRC has the power to refer convictions and sentences back to the Court of Appeal and reflects on some of its features that have reduced miscarriages.

The article focuses on miscarriage of justice and discusses the initiatives of England and Wales in addressing the issue of miscarriage of justice. It analyzes the works of the three legal bodies of England and Wales including the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and the Forensic Regulator in reforming the legal structure to protect the rights of all suspects.

This special issue of the International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice is dedicated to the timely topic of disclosure failures in England and Wales. In the first article of this special issue, authors Almazrouei, Dror and Morgan present a forensic disclosure model, and ask important questions of what should be disclosed to, and by, forensic experts. [Extracted from the article]

Following years of debate, the creation of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in England and Wales signified official recognition that the criminal process may sometimes result in unsafe convictions. Central to the operation of the appellate system, is the ability of individuals who claim that their conviction is in error, to revisit and re-examine evidence gathered during the investigation, as well as that relied upon at their trial. High-profile miscarriages of justice have often only been remedied when there has been defence access to materials post-conviction (which had often not been disclosed pre-trial). While there has (rightly) been critical attention paid to pre-trial non-disclosure and the risks this poses to justice, such scrutiny has been lacking post-conviction. And yet, it is arguable that the rationale of preventing miscarriages of justice underpinning the duties of pre-conviction disclosure, subsists post-conviction. However, the Supreme Court judgment in R (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary & Anor. [2014] UKSC 37 has made it more difficult to gain disclosure post-conviction. This paper details a worrying picture of inconsistency among police and prosecution authorities, with confusion over what should be retained (and how), and whether disclosure post-conviction should be permitted. It concludes that without significant intervention and reform, miscarriages of justice will continue uncorrected and the appellate system will become inconsequential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]