In the case of the Cardiff Three, in 1990 they were convicted of the murder. The appeal was based on confession evidence and whether or not it was admissible due to oppression. It is oppressive for interviewing officers to shout, bully, and intimidate the suspect in interview. An interview obtained in oppressive circumstances was deemed unreliable and not admissible. The main evidence against him was his confession evidence, which was ruled admissible at trial. Two other defendants, Abdullahi and Paris were implicated by Miller’s confession, and later convicted of murder. All three appealed on the ground that the confession had been obtained in oppressive circumstances, which rendered it unreliable and therefore inadmissible under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. It was stated that the interviewing officers could not have acted in a more hostile and intimidating manner. They interviewed for 13 hours over 19 tapes; they had made it clear to the defendant that they would continue to question him until they got it right. In these circumstances the confession should not have been admitted. Their conviction was quashed on the ground that the mood and length of police interviews was such that they should have been excluded from evidence. The case occurred after implementation of PACE 1984, the interviews were tape recorded, suggesting the officers did not believe their approach was incorrect and oppressive.
Falsification of evidence is also a factor for miscarriages of justice, sometimes by a dishonest forensic scientist, as in the Birmingham six, who was jailed for sixteen years for the bombing of the Mulberry Bar in Birmingham in 1974, killing twenty one people. At their appeal hearing it came to light that the forensic evidence that established their guilt at the court hearing, could have been present from holding a cigarette “Scientists admitted in court that forensic tests which were originally said to confirm they had been handling explosives could have produced the same results from handling cigarettes” (Zander 1991). This evidence, if revealed at the time of the court hearing could have made a big difference to the outcome of the trial. There have also been times in the past that barristers have fabricated evidence in anticipation of them becoming the victor “in many trials, barristers are out to win and it is under such circumstances that miscarriages of justice are liable to occur. Evidence, including scientific evidence, can be manipulated in such a way as to make it appear stronger or weaker than it really is. This happens much more frequently than is generally realised” Erzinclioglu (1998).
Non- disclosure of evidence by police is another concern that assists in wrongful conviction, often with the police withholding information from the defence, or the prosecution. This was the case of the M25 three, who after ten years in prison, had their convictions quashed due to irregularities, one being maintaining evidence from the defence, concerning the witness “The defence was also not told that the informer was paid a reward. Police and the witness, a key prosecution witness, had been involved in a profoundly disturbing conspiracy to give perjured evidence” (Shaw 2000) Electronic Telegraph. If this were disclosed to the defence at the time this witness would not have been allowed to testify, therefore, would the jury have reached the same verdict? Due to the high number of wrongful convictions passed down because of the non-disclosure of evidence the Criminal Procedure and investigations ACT was introduced. Under this act, the prosecution must divulge, to the defence, any information that could undermine the prosecution case or be helpful to the defence. Also, there is no proof that any police officer or legal representatives have ever been brought to justice for the part they played in convicting these innocent people.
Mistaken identity can also be a cause of a miscarriage of justice, this can happen accidentally, where a long time has elapsed before the witness is called to identify the suspect, giving them time to forget what the suspect really looks like, or maybe they build a picture in their mind of what they really believe the suspect looks like, this causes some concern when it comes to testifying, as not always is the real perpetrator punished “Notourously inflated opinion that witnesses have their own accuracy renders it unsurprising that a survey in the USA revealed that mistaken identity evidence was the most common cause of miscarriage of justice” Jackson (2001) policing. Although, occasionally mistaken identity can be intentional, as in the David Milgaard case, David spent twenty three years in prison for the murder of a nurse, that he did not commit, but a witness stated he had seen Milgaard return the night of the murder with bloodstains on his clothes, this testimony had a big effect on the outcome of the trial, even though the police knew his testimony was unsafe, due to his mental state of mind “His grip on reality was less than secure, and he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital several months later after claiming he was the son god” (CBC NEWS 2008).
With the cases of wrongful convictions discussed above it is apparent that the most common pre-trail faults leading to miscarriages of justice are falsification of evidence by police officers, non-disclosure of evidence, oppressive conduct by the police, and mistaken identity. These faults imply that there should be more stringent controls on police investigations. As a result of so many miscarriages of justice, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was introduced, along with the due process model. It focussed on protection of the individual defendant, fair system for processing cases, interest in miscarriage cases, further rights for individuals in police stations, and Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6, the right to a fair trial. As a consequence of these Acts being introduced there has been a slight decrease in the number of wrongful convictions, however, there is some dispute concerning these models, as there is so much protection for the individual that it sometimes hinders the conviction of the guilty “Due process values prioritise civil liberties in order to secure maximal acquittal of the innocent, risking acquittal of many guilty people” criminology page 954. Whether these defendants are guilty or innocent, they have still been victims of a miscarriage of justice, as the rights of these individuals had been extremely ignored when arrested, questioned, and put on trial “The phrase of miscarriage of justice do not simply mean a guilty man has escaped or an innocent man has been convicted. It is equally applicable to cases where the acquittal or the conviction has resulted from some form of trial in which the essential rights of the people were disregarded or denied” Naughton (2007).
To prevent miscarriages of justice occurring in the future, many things will have to change in the process of an offender being arrested, to him/her being charged. These changes could include a non-member of the police investigation taking charge of the line up, when the witness is called to pick him/her out. This could avoid leading the witness to the suspect. The suspects’ interview should be video taped, from beginning to end, with the entire interview available to each, and everyone involved. Police informers should never be allowed to give evidence against any individual, as it is apparent from past cases that they are unreliable, and do it for their own gain. Expert witnesses, who appear to be one sided, should be discredited, and made to withdraw their statement. Also police, and/or legal representatives who have withheld information from the other parties should be reprimanded, and brought to justice. With these in place it should help the conviction of many of the innocent people imprisoned for a crime they did not commit. Although, these changes will never completely eradicate all the miscarriages of justice, it may help but a few. Unfortunately, it is a fact that there will always be miscarriages of justice in any legal system, often with tremendous implications, very often amounting to a wasted lifetime. However, it is the truth, that only people who knows the true series of events regarding a case, is the parties themselves. It is then up to the legal systems to deduce the information presented and bequeath the fate of the parties unto them. There is immense difficulty in assessing if a case is in accordance with the facts accessible, or whether it is an elaborate façade. At the moment, there is no technique that is able to eliminate these miscarriages, the government should study, in-depth the wrong doings of our criminal justice system, and change the laws that is assisting the legal individuals to wrongfully convict innocent people. As it is very sad, but a known fact, that once you have been convicted, it is a very tough, lengthy process to get your conviction overturned, sometimes, only when the real perpetrator is found can they clear you of all blame.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Erzinclioglu,Z. (1998) Science and the Law: A Cause for Concern. Contemporary Review, August
Hill,P,J., Hunt,G. (1995) Forever Lost Forever Gone: Bloomsbury.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/milgaard/
Maguire, Mike; Morgan, Rod; Reiner, Robert. (2007) Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford University Press
Morrell, J. (1999) No Smoke Without Fire: A Guide for Victims of a miscarriage of Justice: Published by Bridgewater Four Support Group.
Naughton, M. (2007) rethinking Miscarriages of Justice: Palgrave Macmillan.
Newburn, T. (2003) Handbook of Policing: Willan Publishing
Newburn, T.,Williamson,T., Wright, A. (2007) Handbook of Criminal Investigation: Willam Publishing.
Shaw, T. (2000) M25 Three are Freed as Convictions Quashed. Electronic Telegraph, 18th July.
Woffinden, B. (1987) Miscarriages of Justice: Hodder and Stoughton.
Zander, M. (2007) Cases and Materials on the English Legal System: Cambridge University Press.