7th National Miscarriage of Justice Day Public Meeting

The 7th National Miscarriage of Justice Day Public Meeting organised by United Against Injustice (UAI) took place in Leeds on Saturday, 18 th October 2008. The meeting was preceded by three morning workshops - first, on documents and disclosure by Kevin McMahon (MAI) and Dr. Andrew Green (INNOCENT) , second, on how to get a campaign started by Allison Park, and third, how to make use of the media by Dr. Paul Mason.

This report covers the contributions by the various speakers in the afternoon meeting chaired by actor and radio presenter Dean Sullivan. Apologies for absence were sent from Susan May and Sion Jenkins.

Dr. Paul Mason University of Cardiff

Following his earlier workshop on how to make use of the media when investigating alleged wrongful convictions, Dr. Paul Mason gave a session in the afternoon meeting on media portrayals of crime and miscarriages of justice in general. He began by emphasising the central role played by the media in influencing public opinion on crime and criminal justice issues. Drawing from statistics from the British Crime Survey, Paul noted that whilst the majority of the public obtain information on the criminal justice system through the media, only 6% surveyed considered press reports on crime to be inaccurate. More problematically, in recent years, the over-reporting of crime in the media has led to an increasingly ‘prosecution-minded public’ coupled with an in-proportionate growth of crime-control policies.

Using examples from newspaper articles, Paul went on to describe the ways in which media coverage prior to and during criminal trials can possibly lead to substantial prejudice against the accused. Citing the case of Barry George, he criticised the way in which like Barry, many miscarriage of justice victims continue to receive damaging press coverage despite having their convictions quashed.

Danny Major

Danny Major was a former police officer at Millgarth Police Station in Leeds. In 2003, Danny was accused of assaulting a prisoner whilst on duty. After two trials, each lasting up to five weeks, Danny was convicted of two counts of assault (acquitted on one of the three charges) and was given a fifteen month prison sentence. Danny gave an account of his experiences and the process of trying to prove that he was ‘fitted-up ’ by his ex-colleagues in the police station, such as obtaining the ‘discipline register ’ which revealed serious disciplinary offences including dishonesty and sexual assault by his ex-colleagues, all dealt with as ‘minor matters ’; difficulties he faced in trying to obtain crucial CCTV footage and other articles from the police and CPS; and finding out previously undisclosed forensic expert reports stating that the physical evidence in his case do not match the allegations of assault.

Danny emphasised the support that grassroots campaigns can provide to victims and families. In his case, for instance, Yorkshire and Humberside Against Injustice (YHAI) has not only been highly supportive of Danny and his family, they were proactive in leading his campaign and raising publicity of his case, which is currently being reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Professor Allan Jamieson

Prof. Allan Jamieson, Chair of the Forensic Instituted based in Edinburgh, gave a fascinating account of the problems and limitations of forensic evidence. He began by emphasising that alleged miscarriages of justice should be investigated holistically as opposed to focusing on forensic or DNA evidence alone. Illustrating his point with the recent Omagh Bombing case overturned due to the unreliability of low-copy DNA evidence, Allan highlighted the crucial role played by scientist in ensuring that forensic evidence is presented correctly in court.

Yet, inequality of arms between the defence and the prosecution often prevents an impartial assessment and presentation of forensic evidence. In addition to the absence of a universal standard in deciding the credibility of experts and expert opinions, the lack of resources commonly faced by the defence coupled by the ‘best value’ approach adopted by the Legal Service Commission (LSC) in granting legal aid for defence experts may also compromise the quality of experts the defence has access to.

Further, the adversarial approach to disclosure taken by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) - which discloses only part of the evidence that in its opinion undermines the prosecution’s case against the accused, meant that a holistic view of all the evidence key to ensuring an impartial scientific assessment is often not possible. Far from it, forensic evidence and expert opinions are frequently constructed and presented to fit with specific scenarios (i.e. the prosecution or defence’s version of events)

Indeed, as Allan went on to illustrate, even DNA evidence commonly understood as indisputable evidence of guilt or innocence is intrinsically a highly subjective and value-laden ‘science’. DNA matches are done by identifying ‘peaks’ which indicate the presence of human DNA. The higher the peak, the greater the quantity of DNA present. However, whether a peak can be identified, or how high or low the peak is, is relative to the baseline which is subjectively drawn. As such, DNA assessment is an essentially subjective and a potentially risky process, particularly where the amount of DNA available is of a minute quantity. Similarly, in ‘mixed-DNA’ cases involving mixtures of at least two different DNAs, it is almost impossible to conclude who, or how many people may have contributed the respective DNAs. Without calculations of the probabilities of false inclusions, little inferences can be drawn in such scenarios.

The most significant message of Allan’s session, is perhaps the need for a healthy skepticism in our treatment of forensic science evidence and the caution that needs to be undertaken in taking science as the objective truth. The need for radical changes in the way scientific evidence is approached in the pre-trial/police investigation and trial stages is evident, but this change can perhaps only be driven by a public inquiry evoked by a miscarriage of justice where science is the culprit.

Michelle Diskin

Michelle Diskin is the sister of Barry George who recently quashed his conviction and was acquitted on a retrial for the murder of television presenter, Jill Dando, shot dead outside her home in 1999. Following a referral by the CCRC, Barry ’s conviction was quashed after it was revealed that the single firearm discharge residue found on his overcoat could easily have come from other sources. A retrial was ordered and on 1 August 2008, Barry was acquitted after a unanimous ‘not guilty ’ verdict by the jury. Since his acquittal, Barry, who is disabled and suffers from mental health problems continues to face problems and ongoing demonisation by the media which has inevitably fuelled the social stigma he already faced due to the publicity and notoriety of his case.

University of Sheffield Innocence Project

Rose and Victoria, representatives from the University of Sheffield Innocence Project (UoSIP) gave a brief presentation of the works of the UoSIP and innocence projects in general. As with other member innocence projects of the Innocence Network UK, the UoSIP was established to investigate alleged wrongful convictions or claims of ‘factual ’ innocence (as opposed to allegations of technical miscarriages of justice or sentencing issues). Although the UoSIP is well-resourced with over 50 student caseworkers, as Rose and Victoria described, students encounter many practical obstacles in the case-working process. A central problem, for instance, is their lack of investigative powers and associated difficulties in obtaining case documents from trial solicitors and other criminal justice agencies.

On a more positive note, by working outside (and alongside) the rules and boundaries of the criminal justice and appeals process, innocence projects can contribute to generating public and media attention on alleged wrongful convictions where the CCRC is unable to refer them to the Court of Appeal, and raise wider public awareness on the issue of miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions in general.

Michael O ’Brien

The meeting concluded with a thought provoking account by Michael O ’Brien, whom, along with Ellis Sherwood and Darren Hall- known as the ‘Cardiff Newsagent Three ’, each spent 11 years of wrongful imprisonment for the murder of Cardiff newsagent Philip Saunders. Michael was 19 years old at the time of arrest, during which he was chained to a hot radiator and denied access to a solicitor by the police. The three were subsequently convicted due to a coerced, false ‘confession’ by vulnerable and mentally-ill co-accused, Darren Hall, and an alleged cell ‘confession’ between Michael and Ellis Sherwood fabricated by Inspector Stuart Lewis.

Michael’s persistent efforts to clear his name finally saw the convictions of him and his co-accused quashed by the Court of Appeal in December 1999. Although, years of wrongful incarceration has left him deeply scarred with a string of disabling psychological effects including two nervous breakdowns, post-traumatic stress disorder, paranoia and panic attacks, Michael’s legal battle did not end with achieving his freedom. He embarked on a two-year legal action against South Wales police and took the then Home Secretary to the House of Lords for deduction of ‘saved-living expenses’ from his compensation. He also co-founded the Miscarriage of Justice Organisation (MOJO) with Paddy Hill of the Birmingham Six to assist other possible victims of wrongful imprisonment.

Michael recently published his autobiography (written with Greg Lewis), The Death of Justice (2008, Ylofa).

Conclusion

As with previous years, the 2008 Miscarriage of Justice Day Public Meeting has been a successful event that provided the much needed opportunity for victims, families and supporters to gather and share their individual stories and experiences. Perhaps of more significance, the practical workshops and the various insightful sessions the meeting delivered were certainly a constructive contribution towards empowering those campaigning against alleged miscarriages of justice with invaluable knowledge and information to take ownership of their cases in their battle to challenge their own convictions or those of their loved ones.

In a climate where the needs of victims of wrongful convictions are limitedly provided for or worse, largely unrecognised, such a platform to network and foster mutual support between victims and families sharing similar struggles is indeed even more crucial.