Interview with SALLY PALMER from BBC Knowledge Magazine

I interviewed Sally Palmer from BBC Knowledge Magazine.
This was part of our assignment for the third year Magazine Journalism module. I took an approach to find a magazine that would interest me and produce content that I would be interested in personally or even be eager to work for myself. I decided to go with a little bit of unconventional looks for the interview make it artistic and use cut aways from the magazine purely for the visual effect and learning new editing tricks.

BBC Knowledge Magazine looked perfect for this task.

I wanted to find out how the process of making a magazine looks and how did her day as an editor of this particular magazine is. I was curious about the history of the magazine and what was her drive for working within Magazine industry. I was also interested about her view on celebrity coverage of other magazines as BBC Knowledge is made for a completely different audience. I wanted to know her reasons why she had gone into Knowledge type of magazine content rather than celebrity orientated magazine. Another subject I touched on in the interview was the future of print magazines in light of everything going online and is video based and finally as a future graduate I wanted to find out what sort of advice could she give for young graduates of journalism or freelance writers.

As Sally says on the front page of the online website for the magazine BBC Knowledge Magazine's international publication is "for everyone who is curious about the world we all share – the natural life that inhabits it, the history that has shaped our lives upon it, and the science that is propelling us onward into the 21st century.


Each issue, the best science writers explore life, the Universe – everything. The world’s leading historians explain the past and tell us why it all matters. And wildlife experts file reports from points right across the planet." 

Getting Media involved into investigating an alleged miscarriage of Justice

Press are the eyes and the ears of the public, to whom they report said Lord Bingham (ref.1) and The Public interest is the main priority for a journalist to pursue their inspiration, “the information’s value to society is argued to be particularly high, or potentially so.” (ref.1)McNae also gives that Lord Bingham said that “the proper functioning of a modern participatory democracy requires that the media be free, active, professional and enquiring” and that is as long as when working for the public interest (certain information is valuable to the society).

The press is free in UK and journalism can be therefore called "‘the fourth estate’ - the body of professional who police the criminal justice system and act as the public’s eyes and ears - 'a bloodhound as well as a watchdog' ”. (ref.2) And court reporters exercise watchdog role on the justice system having at the same time not much more than the same rights as citizens of this country protecting them in difficult or controversial situations surrounding some of the reporting techniques.


Thanks to freedom of expression, everyone (including press) in UK has a right to communicate information and ideas. Without this right Democracy wouldn’t exit. Textbooks like McNae give that until 2000 UK had ‘residual’ rights – making people free to do whatever law does not prohibit. Before the constitution embedded from European law the law was set by law-jury trial and the rule against prior restraint. After the European Convention of Human Rights was adopted directly into UK law human rights became codified (incl. Freedom of Expression).


Two provisions in section one of the convention - article 8 (which establishes a right to privacy) and article 10 (which is a right to freedom of expression) are of special concern to journalists. Journalism itself is intimately related to Human Rights and the rule of law in a free society, with free speech and the right of the citizen to express themselves to the public good. (ref.2)


Privacy Act in Convention (Art 8) did not previously exist within UK law but constant changes to adjust UK conventions to Human Rights act led to developments within case law. The case law is the system by which reporters of previous cases and the judges ‘interpretation of the common law can be used as a precedent where the legally material facts are similar’.


For journalists the most important part of the Convention is Article 10 Freedom of Expression thanks to which “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall not include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.” (ref.1)


Journalism and law are closely related professions. "Criminal law such as contempt of court places grave restraint on what journalists can write or broadcast and presents a constant danger of imprisonment or fines. (ref.2) A professional journalist needs to be very familiar with branches of the law. The law is important to journalists not only because it is a fantastic source of news but also it is a constraint on the actions of journalists. Press can see this aim to be of such principle that sometimes the forms of obtaining that information can be questionable (undercover journalism). Within this idea hides the main conflicting idea of obtaining information that is created because of two opposite sections within the European law, Freedom of Expression and the Privacy Act. (ref.2)


Within the law of Defamation, libel and slander “strikes a balance between the media being free to express wrongdoing and individual being able to defend reputation from baseless attacks.” (ref.1) Contempt of Court Act 1981 restricts reporting in the court and this could be also seen as restriction on freedom of expression (recent example: Coroners & Justice Bill 2009 & Counter Terrorism Act 2008, McNae's, ch1.).


Another type of restrictions put on press are so called Injunctions (recent example: Lilly Allen who complaint about press crossing the line and disturbing her right to privacy). Injunctions are “stopping publication when media organisation plans to air matter which an individual argues will breach his/her privacy or duty of confidence owed to it.” (ref.1)


Acting in the Public interest is supported by The Freedom of expression law and Qualified Privilege or Absolute Privilege in certain circumstances. “Under the European Communities Act from 1972 the UK is part of European Union, EU treaties and other EU law are thus part of UK law. “(ref.1) After World War II, Western European nations signed a treaty creating the Council of Europe which was a body that would promote individual freedom, political liberty, and the rule of law.(ref.1) This council’s rules led to a further treaty, The European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECtHR), which includes fundamental laws like right to life, freedom off torture or freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights was created to which individuals can take their case to this court to argue that a signatory nation has failed to protect them from, or to sufficiently compensate them for , a breach of Convention right by a public authority. (ref.1)


The Human Rights Act 1998 that came to force 2 October 2000 increased influences of the Convention and the ECtHR on UK courts because the act integrated the Convention into UK law. The UK does not have a written constitution or "fundamental law". Going back to ancient rules of services of law, in England there is still a common law tradition and the constitution is based on historic documents (eg the Magna Carta); there is also statute law (Acts of Parliament) and case law (the actual decisions made by judges and juries). Case law is a general term used when speaking of sources of law.

CRIMINAL LAW deals with offences against society as a whole (such as murder, violence in general or blasphemy) or offences against another person which - (although they may also be a civil-type dispute between people) are abhorrent to society as a whole. Examples include fraud, dangerous driving, robbery, murder, rape and other types of violence or threatening behaviour. The Crown Court Prosecution (CPS) decides whether the case will be brought to the court.


Few last points to that are certainly worth mentioning are that it is incredibly important for journalists to not only have a wider knowledge about the legal systems and the constitution in the country they are practising their profession at but also to stay alert to challenges from the sides of unreasonable or unlawful restrictions on their freedom. They have to remember that there are two constitutional bulwarks that protect freedom of expression in UK such as jury trial and rule against prior restraint. And last but not least for a journalist to remember is to follow the Code of Ethics that should guide journalists in their work.


“ The issue of alleged wrongful convictions has been inextricably bound up with the UK’s media for the last century. “(...) The media and this important issue have formed a powerful and dangerous partnership. “ Dr Eamon O’Neil (Ref.3)


There are many instances of the press and the issue of wrongful convictions coming together. Conan Doyle. “His two most famous cases involved George Edalji and Oscar Slater: a half-Indian living in England, and a German-Jew living in Scotland. (...) Conan Doyle found himself supporting and publicising both cases widely. The author’s standing and reputation catapulted the cases into the public eye and support for them slowly grew until both were satisfactorily resolved.The involvement of the great writer, the press and the public showed that there was an appetite amongst society for acknowledging that the criminal justice system sometimes gets it wrong and convicts the innocent of crimes they did not commit. (...)" (Ref.3) Canon Doyle’s exposure of the Edalji case helped bring about reform of the justice system itself and contributed to the formation of the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1907.


(...) a notable aspect to Slater case however, was the fact that Conan Doyle was attracted to the case after reading a (...) book written by lawyer named William Roughead, a much overlooked person in the whole saga. It was that humble document, which systematically dismantled the case against Slater, which was the spark that ignited the eventual firestorm.” (Ref.3)


When there is the individual claiming wrongful conviction there is the mystery of the case itself which is served up for public consumption through the press. “There is usually a central victim who readers can also identify with; there is the tantalising possibility that the establishment – in the form of the police and justice system – got it “wrong’ which is always of interest to most open societies; there is the high-profile supporter of the case (...) who adds credibility to the case, redressing the moral balance when dealing with someone the system has already convicted and locked-up; there is the opportunity for wider society to jump onboard (...) all of the aspects that create a great story and attract attention of the public becomes worthwhile. “ (Ref.3) All of these parts from “an attractive package for journalists, editors and readers and therefore it is no wonder wrongful convictions and the press often form an intoxicating marriage.” (Ref.3)


The times that have been famously remembered that have exercise the legal system by miscarriages of justice are shown in a short film called: Reeling in the Years 1974-3, which shows two of the cases that I would like to talk about. The case of The Birmingham Six and the case of The Guilford Four (Ref.12 & 13). The Guildford Four case has been brought to the history and a film has been made ‘In the name of the father’ that has kept this glorious moment of justice winning over in our memories.


In the film Who Bombed Birmingham an example is shown when the outcome of investigative work of journalistic genius becomes heroic was the work of Chris Mullin on the Birmingham Six case. It shows how “a brilliant, exemplary and genuinely imaginative piece of investigative journalism (...) can lead to sections of the tabloid press (...). Only with hindsight can we see that their fight with him wasn’t legal, factual or even journalistic – it was purely political. (Ref.3)


Six men were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment after the bombing in Birmingham in 1970s. IRA seemed to be the instigator but what the IRA insisted was that none of the sentenced six were their members. Two of the public houses were bombed by the IRA, 21 people were killed and 162 injured, 6 people were convicted and had been in prison since 1974. A Granada film is a reconstruction of examining of their case by three journalists since 1985 giving the story of the Birmingham six. The journalists kept on knocking on the doors and they did not give up until the truth won. The journalists noticed inaccuracies to do with the times of interrogation by the police and started questioning the course of the investigation that had put the six men into prison. As we can see on the film, the men were brutally beaten and assaulted. Journalists find a clue in ‘playing cards’ and interview men in prison later they decided to run a simple DNA test that proves that the test carried out on the Birmingham six may have been misleading . (Ref.11)


The journalists see a clue in the fact that the men are severely beaten up on their faces as they can see from the pictures, all six men were abused in prison. Looking into the bombing routine - bombings Chris comes to the conclusion that there were four people responsible for the bombing, 2makers two planters and “we have agreed that you are one of them” says the journalist to one of his interviewees. Chris now needs the planters to make the application for an appeal stronger. Chris finds the guy who put the suitcase with the bomb under the table in the pub and later on he publishes a book ‘Error of judgment’, it doesn’t get men out of the prison but it makes the governing bodies start to question things again (Home office 1986). During the questioning Chris keeps his sources covered fulfilling his journalistic duty. Police says to him that they never said that the imprisoned 6 were members of IRA even though that he knows that in evidence they said that the Birmingham 6 was. Further material is being broadcasted, possibility of the DNA judgment to be wrong and mistreating by the looks of the prisoner’s faces. After two programs had been published and book by Chris Muller, 1987 the case goes into the court of Appeal and the case is investigated again as the case has been taken to the court of appeal. 1987 in court, while being questioned, the police officer denies all the allegation on violence used on the Birmingham six and inaccuracies within the schedule of questioning them but the turning point is when the police woman who has previously given a false statement (because she was being threatened) came back to court and said in front of the judge and jury how she witnessed one of the defendants to be physically assaulted, she also heard what was said “This is what we do to the fucking murdering bustards”(Ref.10). Then the forensic scientist who examined the original samples of the defendants’ DNA is called a witness and his statement proves that his judgment then was wrong. In the meantime Chris Mullin goes to the house of the man who he believes to be ‘the young planter of the bomb’ and challenges him to deny what Chris believes to be true. He says that the six couldn’t tell the police where the bombs were as they didn’t know because it was him who knew it. (Ref.11)

The appeal fails but Chris does not give in. It took until the 1991 for the court to admit that they had the wrong men The Birmingham Six spent 16 years in prison before found not guilty and was released.


“Journalists are ethically bound to investigate any claims of innocence for themselves. They are at the most part, trained not to sign up to anyone’s campaign. They are also trained to be professionally sceptical” which does not mean that they are disinterested but maintaining professional balance of open possibilities to clearly see factual evidence and use them effectively to their best potential. “ (Ref.3) Mullin’s enemies were willing to castigate him in order to annihilate the merest possibility that the public would ever know that the Establishment had wrongfully convicted six Irishmen whose only crime was being who they were in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Lesser journalists would have cracked under the pressure and it is to Mullin’s everlasting credit that his truth did eventually come out.” (Ref.3) In this example “the tabloid newspapers not only published erroneous facts before the trial which could have swayed a jury but they went further and called for capital punishment to be brought back. Reading headlines from that era suggests that the newspaper editors had taken leave of their senses and were happy to urge the readers to literally lynch the accused (and as it turned out innocent) men at the centre of the firestorm.” (Ref.3)


Other more recent examples like Barry George “show that certain sections of the media are still willing to frame the facts in a certain way to suit their preconceived agendas. As Dr Eamon O’Neil admits himself he had plodded around editors more times trying to interest them in possible wrongful convictions stories and the numerous outcomes would be suggestion just to interview gangsters because ‘that’s more glamorous’ and he would be often be told that certain criminals claiming innocence ‘must have done the crime because ‘they look like they are guilty’. (Ref.3)


Other great examples of effective investigative journalism are Ludvic Kennedy's great series of BBC team at Rough Justice or more recent Guardian ‘Justice on Trial’ series was a great work of British investigative journalism and as Eamon points out “socially-engaged journalism at its best. (...) Powerful because it comprehensively conveyed the depth of complexity of wrongful convictions in their entirety.” (Ref.3)


There is always the other side of the coin in getting media involved, as I must point out.


Just like being a solicitor or a judge being an investigative journalist is also a profession and with every profession comes desire of financial award at the end of the investigatory route, it is worth keeping in mind that “press does get on board an alleged miscarriage of justice case and uses its considerable resources to investigate and publish on the case. “ Eamon also admits that the “urge to print a hot story on a miscarriage of justice can often overpower the need to call a lawyer and ask whether immediate publishing was a good idea.” (Ref.3) Also remember that “reporters are now under the greater pressure to produce more articles in shorter times than ever before. Publishers and editors seem to believe in the magical powers of technology to make their journalists be in two places at once and never make mistakes. This means that alleged wrongful conviction cases which demand time and resources to examine, are pushed to one side. “ (Ref.3)


Professional and real journalists like Eamon would always aim to put the fullest version of facts before the reading and viewing public, but there are also other priorities that the journalist have to fulfil. He also emphasises that it is a “fact of life” that it is good “to build a strong and open partnership with the press. He has witnessed himself, as he says, to have the crucial witnesses telling him important facts which they would otherwise have denied or acknowledged of hours before to the police officers, criminal defence lawyers and case staff from the CCRC. As he points out, as a journalist, there is “no legal powers to compel a witness to speak out”.


Sometimes journalists are seen as “the last court of appeal for many of the spectrum of witnesses who want to have their say.” (Ref.3) And last but not least, form of well fulfilled role of journalist makes it the last chance if everything else fails, “then well-placed pre piece can undoubtedly shunt a possible wrongful conviction case forward. (...) So the occasionally light-beam of attention from a journalist can jolt the system into action.” (Ref.3)


To conclude, journalist can of course be of great help to challenge a claim of wrongful conviction and reach their aim of “best obtainable version of truth”, but as Dr Eamon says, stay open to the journalist working on an alleged wrongful conviction sometimes turning up something which challenges your position as it is just like lawyers of defence or prosecution it is their job to dig deep in factual evidence.




References
Ref. 1.McNae's Essential law for Journalists (20th Edition)
Ref. 2. Media law and ethics, notes for week 1 of Media Law and ethics module by Chris Horrie
Ref.3. Claims of Innocence, An Introduction to wrongful convictions and how they might be challenged Michael Naughton with Gabe Tan (2010)
Ref.11) Who bombed Birmingham?
Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbTqTbmMgkQ  
Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCGyaS3oPk&feature=related  
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpPW2LjkYnE&feature=related  
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXMUuyEgbb8&NR=1  
Part 6 (which is the following part after part 4 on youtube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XstdO1PY5gQ&feature=related  
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu9isCmV-rs&NR=1  
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBqyYOjCcQ&NR=1  
Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIO0lClllzI&NR=1
Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nY70XT_Muo&NR=1  
Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WhtXQo5EC4&feature=related
Ref.12) Reeling in years 1974-3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_OFo7Crigs&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Ref.13) The Guilford Four, In the name of the father : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgUWn0gVpq0&feature=related

Methods for investigating claims of Innocence (evidence of facts) - studying investigative Journalism

In their book Claims of Innocence, An Introduction to wrongful convictions and how they might be challenged Michael Naughton and Gabe Tan give fantastic guidelines listing few steps to how to approach an alleged miscarriage of justice.

Crucial are ensuring the retention of evidence and case documents, team will have to ensure of the retention of material by the police, Forensic Science Services (FSS) and by solicitors.

Few good tips there were that if “you are still seeking to challenge your conviction even after you have lost in your appeal or the CCC has refused to refer your case back to appeal courts it is vital that you make a formal written request to the relevant police force for all material relating to your case to be retained.” In case of FSS, “All items submitted by the police to the FSS will normally be returned to the police upon completion of the laboratory examination except in circumstances where the samples are thought to pose a potential hazard (e.g. biological samples such as blood), or, where an agreement has been reached with a relevant police force/organisation for the FSS to retain them, or part of them, under specialised storage conditions, for reference purposes or for possible future re-examination using improved techniques.

The FSS will maintain a document audit trail in relation to retained and destroyed material. The FSS will retain [keep in their possession] material for 30 years as a matter of course in serious cases” including the the murder . This 30 year period do not cover items of perishable nature, like body fluids for example. A “Notification of Intention to Destroy Items of a Perishable Nature' will be sent to the defence team prior to destruction which lists the items that the FSS are intending to dispose of. “ In light of this alleged victims of wrongful convictions should instruct their defence team to respond to the FSS ' Notification of Intention to Destroy Items of Perishable Nature' and request to the FSS for the destruction to be stayed – stopped.” It is also stated here that in addition o above, “ a formal request to the FSS should be made for other non-perishable materials to be retained beyond the minimum retention period.” In situation when the materials have been destroyed it is still possible that material taken from the item has still been retained. Further advise is given here that “it is worth contacting the FSS to ascertain the specific items and samples that they still hold in relation to your case.”

Retention policy with forensic science providers other than FSS is within General Specification Schedule 6A Items 3.22-3.26 Storage, Retention and Disposal, further on it was advaised again that “it is recommended that it be requested in writing to the forensic science that the police need to be contacted is that once a forensic science provider has finished with a case, most exhibits will be sent back to the police. However, certain items such as microscope slides , DNA extracts , acetate sheets containing fibre tape lifts etc will be retained by the forensic science provider for a variable amount of time.” an example of a case study given here is the conviction of Sean Hodgson who was imprisoned for murder of Teresa De Simone in 1979 because FSS had incorrectly declared that “all exhibits in the case were destroyed when the first request for DNA testing on the samples was made”. He served 27 years in prison before his conviction was overturned “when DNA testing of the semen sample collected at the crime scene did not match his profile.”

It is also important that the solicitors are also instructed “in writing not to destroy their files, including instructions and briefs, attendance notes and correspondence sent to third parties on their behalf.”

As an important starting point to investigation it is crucial to learn trial proceedings and examin how the jury decides on convictions which I already did go through the law aspect in two of my other posts when looking into law aspects of Criminal sentencing and jury decision making as well as focused on studying specific crime (murder) and different asoects of defence:

Criminal Law– Smith and Hogan, studying Investigative Journalism
Criminal Law by Alan Reed and Ben Fitzpatrick, chosen aspects- studying Investigative Journalism

The trial scripts and judges summing up are very important and probably best starting point before going deeper into specific areas of the case like for example DNA evidence or handprints. It is good to recognise what wa sthe Prosecutions' and Defence case for the defendant.

In Prosecution's Case, as Michael and Gabe point out it is significant to learn what is the prosequtions's version of what happened and what were the evidence supporting this version and what evidence was produced to undermine the defence's case. They also give advise to construct a list of all the proseqution witnesses who testified in court or whose statements were read out in court, and the evidence given by each of these witnesses. It is a key factor to understand evidence that led to the conviction and look for evidence undermining it or as Gabe and Michael say "disprove it tottaly". The same thing should be done for defence case just studying how the prosecution case was undermined by the defence and all the rest to do with the statements but corresponding to the defence. To stand up arguments against prosecition "evidence needs to be found that contradicts their statements or testiminios."

It is also equaly significant to "to get grips with how the police investigation was conducted, how the evidence was obtained, and whether there is evience that could support your case at trial which was not disclosed by the prosecution or which was ommited by the defence team." As an Inocence Project team that re-examines the case "you have to actively find evidence that undermines the prosecution's case and/or produce new evidence that could positively establish that alleged victims of wrongful conviction are innocent ot the crime that they have been convicted of."

When looking at the witness testimonies it is worth looking into things like whether the evidence given to the police is consistent with the evidence that the witness gave in court; "if a witness provided more than one statement, and the evidence which incriminates the alleged victim of wrongful conviction only came out in the later statement, it is crucial to question why the witness did not provide the evidence in his or her earlier statement(s). " Other thing to be done in course of examinations are looking into unused materials like witness statements perhaps there was something in there that that could contradict the witness's evidence or even find out if any of the witnesses had ever had a history of making false allegations.

Further on, loking into witness evidence, eyewitness identification evidence "featured in the prosecution's case at trial and you think that eyewitness might have been genuinely mistaken, (i.e. you are not claiming that the eye witness lied to the police or in court) the following pointers could assist you in proving that the eyewitness identification evidence is unreliable (...).”

Identififation procedure also has to comply with the Police and Crim inal Evidence Act 1984, particulary the Code of Practice for the Identification of Persons by the Police officers (Code d). Other significant tip is that “the witness should not see suspect on any photographs or description of the suspect prior to the ID parade.” Or even “could the witness have heard or heard any describtion of the suspect from the media prior to making the identification?” All these are vitally important, Michael and Gabe also give website that helps with other aspects of identification issues on Crampton, S. (2005) ‘Identification Issues’. (www.unitedagainstinjustice.org.uk )

Other aspect of giving statements is confesions, “if an alleged victim of wrongful conviction is convicted on basis of a confession, and s/he now [is] claiming that confession is false, the following pointers might assist in showing the unreliability of the confession:”
- all police interviews with suspects have to be audio recorded,
- if a person is forced to make a false confesion – check if police compied with the provisions set out under the PACE (Code of Practice C) (including the alleged victim of wrongful conviction)
- if the alleged victim of wrongful conviction is a vulnerabl suspect or suffers from mental or physical disability, check if the proper procedures for interviewing vulnerable suspects were adhered to.
-Does the confession contain describtions like how the crime was committed which do not fit with the evidence ,
- “At which point did the confession emerge? Are there any inconsistencies in the evidence given by the alleged victim of a wrongful convicton in the course of the police investigation? Did the alleged victim attempt to retract their confession in the course of the police investigation?”
-check how long was the alleged victim of wrongful conviction retained in custody before making the confession?
-Was the confession made in presence of the solicitor
- “if the alleged victim of wrongful conviction is alleging that the confession was fabricated by the police, send the statement for analysis by forensic psychologist. There might be words or forms of expressions contained in the statement that does not fit with the age/or educational background of the alleged victim”
-“if the alleged victim might have an undiagnosed mental or personality disorder which could make him/her vulnerable to making a false confession, arrange for a diagnosis by forensic psychologist.”

All above is vital, I will be dealing with more Forensic issues in separate chapter, which I will publish soon.

Finally, last but not least to end this post it is worth adding fue more quotes from Michael and Gabe’s book regarding solicitors. In the centre of all major wrongful conviction cases that Michael and Gabe cited in their book are “defence solicitors who were committed to the plight of the alleged innocent victims and dedicated themselves to assisting them to overturn their criminal convictions.

Such criminal appeal solicitors are vital in attempts to overturn alleged wrongful convictions. They can use their legal powers to ask for, and obtain, disclosure of evidence, challenge decisions made by authorities such as Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) or the police, ensure that correspondence to prisoners is confidential and not opened before it reaches them, obtain affidavits from witnesses who want to prove alibis or retract their incriminating statements, they can commission new tests to be conducted to produce new evidence that can call safety of the conviction in question, they can make the application for the appeal or to Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).”

*All quotes and information are from:
Claims of Innocence, An Introduction to wrongful convictions and how they might be challenged
Michael Naughton with Gabe Tan (2010)

*My other posts created on basis of this book:
SEE HERE - Claims of Innocence by Michael Naughton and Gabe Tan – studying Investigative Journalism

Claims of Innocence by Michael Naughton and Gabe Tan – studying Investigative Journalism

“Criminal justice process is not perfect and factually innocent individuals can, and for variety reasons are , wrongly convicted and even imprisoned for crimes they have played no part in.”

Through my research and reading I will be trying to show the emergence of rethinking the circumstances which allowed for some of the wrongful convictions to happen. Claims of Innocence by Michael Naughton is on of these books which explore number of wrongful convictions and introduce the concept of challenging them.

As a third year student of Journalism being part of the Innocence Project I am interested in certain aspects of investigatory techniques as well as trying to learn important law concepts that have affected our case.

In his book, Michael lists causes of wrongful convictions including aspects of the pre-trial and trial stages of the criminal justice process “from false allegations, police misconduct, prosecution and and police non-disclosure, erroneous forensic science and expert evidence, and poor representation from criminal defence lawyers.” Michael, a founder and leader for Innocent Project in Bristol wrote this book along with Gabe Tan giving useful guidelines for not only members of Innocence Project but also future lawyers and investigative journalists.

“Innocence projects were established in recognition of failings of the Court Appeal (Criminal Devision) and the Criminal Cases Review Commission to guarantee that factually innocent victims of wrongful conviction will overturn their convictions. But innocence projects, too, are constrained by the lack of resources and investigatory powers. “

Michael talks about the beginning of the need for creation of organisations like Innocence Project.
“The CCRC [Criminal Cases Review Commission] followed a recommendation by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (1993) (RCCJ) that was prompted by the public cricis of the confidence in the entire criminal justice system, which was caused by the cases of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six and a string of other notable cases in which Irish people were wrongly convicted upon suspiction of being connected with terrorist crimes that were commited by the IRA (Irish Republican Army). “

Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) “was set up in response to notorious cases such as Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, but it cannot guarantee that innocent victims of wrongful conviction will have their cases referred back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Devision) if the evidence of innocence was available at the time of the original trial.”

The CCRC website states ' We do not consider innocence or guilt, but whether there is new evidence or argument that may cast doubt on the safety of an original decision'. It seeks to check the decisions are made within the rules and procedures and to determine lawfulness of the convictions. Important are new evidence that “may undermine legal safety of the criminal convictions”.

Since 2002, applicants for CCRC have to write a letter to the CCRC setting out basis of challenge before proceeding with an application for judicial review.
The CCRC will decide within 14 days id the challenge should be conceded or not. (www.ccrc.gov.uk/canwe.htm> and guide to making application: http://unitedagainstinjustice.org.uk/advice/CCRC%20applications%20guide.html+constraints>)

Following that another quite a shocking fact in English law I found was that if the convicted person doesn't admit the guilt and “refuse to undertake specified offending behaviour programmes to provide the Parole Board with the evidence that it needs to recommend release.” So effectively, law is not particularly concerned with absolute truth, but “with proof before a fallible human tribunal to a requisite standard of probability in accordance with formal rules of evidence” (House of Lords ruling in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Shanron [1974] 59 Cr. App. R. 250) The above accounts for reasons of innocent people being convicted, what is more, the fact that “proof that the evidence that led to the conviction is unreliable does not guarantee that the Court of Appeal (Criminal Devision) will deem a wrongful conviction unsafe and quash it.” Successful appeals in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) are “mainly achieved by new evidence that shows criminal convictions to be unreliable and, therefore deemed to be unsafe.”

Michel lists key causes of wrongful convictions like False Confessions, like in case of Ian Lawless, who in 2001 was convicted and given a life sentence for a murdering Alf Wilkins. His conviction was quashed in 2009 after 8 years in prison after it was revealed that Ian suffered from personality disorder which made him create false confessions because of a pathological need for attention. 

Incompetent Police investigation was a reason to convicting Warren Blackwell in 1999. The independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) revealed a series of errors by Northamptonshire Police that contributed to Blackwell's wrongful Conviction. 

Example of Police Misconduct can be observed in case of Cardiff Newsagent Three where three innocent people were convicted in 1988 of killing and robbery of cardiff Newsagent Philip Sunders. Johny Kamara spent 20years in prison when “it was found that the police failed to disclosure over 200 statements taken during the course of investigation this injustice has been committed due to so called non-disclosure of Vital Evidence.

George Anderson and Margaret Hewitt were convicted in 2004 of child abuse, their convictions were quashed due to revealing false allegations by one of the complainants who admitted that he had lied.
In 1998, Tony Wild admitted in a BBCRough Justice documentary that he had fabricated the evidence against Reg Dudley and Bob Maynard who were convicted of murdering Billy Mosley and Micky Cornwall, to evade long prison sentence for armed robbery. Both Reg and Bob have served over 20 years of wrongful conviction due to so called Prison Informants.

Flawed Expert Evidence was a reason for creating misleading evidence by Professor Sir Roy Meadow who stated that odds of deaths of two children was 73,000,000 to 1 and Sally Clark and Angela Cannings were both given life sentences for murdering their children. In 2003 it was revealed that their children had most likely died of natural causes. 

The conviction of Andrew Adams was overturned after he served 15years in prison due to a poor defence in 1993 in which numerous crucial evidence were overlooked.

“Thousands of people convicted of criminal offences seek to challenge their convictions in the Appeal Courts in England and Wales each year.” As Michael notices, there are various reasons why “alleged victims of wrongful conviction might maintain innocence when they are not innocent” like hope for successful appeal; ignorance of criminal law in which the convicted people do not know or understand that their behaviour is criminal. Other reasons can account for disagreement with Criminal law in which the convicted person is aware of the actions of criminal offence but disagree that they should be convicted; claims that there was a technical miscarriage of justice or even because of shame or even stigma of being associated with a criminal offender.

Striking to find out was for me to find out how the Parole Deal works. Looking at the cases like for example Paul Blackburn and Robert Brown, each of them spent 25 years in prison being innocent and maintaining their innocence, had they acknowledged guilt and had they “confronted their offending behaviour and, thus, demonstrated a reduced risk of reoffending in eyes of the Parole Board, they would, probably, have served around half that time.”

“An appellant challenging a conviction given in a magistrates' Court who fails his/her appeal in the High Court might apply to have the case heard at the Supreme Court.” Which only hears cases from the High Court, what is more it happens in a very limited circumstances where “the case involves arguable points of law and is deemed to be of general public importance.”

“The latest available figures from the Ministry of Justice show that between 2004-2008 (inclusive), the CACD [Court of Appeal, Criminal Devision]received an annual average of 1,627 applicants for leave to appeal against conviction” of which “24% on almost a quarter of all whose made an application to single Judge were successful in having their case referred to the Full Court for an Appeal. “

“Under s.2 of the Criminal Appeal act 1995 the role of the CACD is solely to adjudicate the safety of the conviction and quash a conviction if it decides that the conviction is 'unsafe':
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Court of Appeal:
a)Shall allow an appeal against conviction if they think that the conviction is unsafe; and,

b) shall dismiss such an appeal in any other case. “

“An appelant to the Supreme Court may only be brought with the permission of the CACD or of the Supreme Court and, if refused, to The Supreme Court.”

All quotes and information from:

Claims of Innocence, An Introduction to wrongful convictions and how they might be challenged
Michael Naughton with Gabe Tan (2010)