miscarriages of justice happen are procedural or evidential irregularity. These are the most common cases. However, in this short article, we will look at some of the other reasons including tampered or fabricated evidence and a lack of representation. Most criminal appeals will be based on the grounds of a procedural irregularity, often pertaining to a judge having made a mistake on the law, directed the jury on the law incorrectly or there being a fault in disclosure to the defendant. It may also be due to an evidential irregularity, where a piece of evidence was admitted into a criminal trial which ought not to have been (e.g. a defendants previous convictions or a statement which is unreliable due to the circumstances of the case). However, there have also been cases in which evidence has been tampered with and fabricated; has been left out of the trial or ignored during an investigation. To take an example, Sam Hallam who was released in 2012 after serving seven years for Murder was the victim of a miscarriage of justice by reason of forgotten evidence, in that his mobile phone had evidence on it which proved Sam was not at the scene of the crime at the time of the Murder and yet the police never investigated or looked into his phone. That is one, of many, examples of individuals who are the sufferers of wrongful convictions due to a systematic failure by a body of the criminal justice system. Another factor which must have been a part of a number of declared miscarriages of justice is public funding. Legal aid for
criminal defendants is at an all-time low. The size of the fee is
also fixed, despite much of the work that legal representatives need to do is on preparing a case. Many defendants choose to represent themselves given that they do not qualify for legal aid, nor can they pay their own fees. Although the courts aim to protect defendants from being wrongfully convicted by reason of lack of representation, the fact that a defendant without representation is responsible for how his case is run, what evidence he offers to the courts and for challenging prosecution evidence, is yet another reason why a defendants liberty is at stake. Do you know of any other reasons a person may have been wrongly convicted? Should prosecutors be required to disclose to defendants all the evidence gathered by police in their investigation of the crimes with which theyve been charged? Do the courts need to do more to protect potentially innocent people from being convicted by strictly following the rules of procedure and evidence? Does the solution lie with proper representation for all persons? The University of Sheffield