Reasons to DoubtPub Date : 2019-01-31DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0002
C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"A Commission under Scrutiny","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the nature of criticisms about the Criminal Cases Review Commission, especially with regards to its application of the ‘real possibility test’ in investigating and referring potential wrongful conviction cases. It begins with a discussion of the Commission's structural failings as perceived by critics external to the institution, with particular emphasis on the argument that focusing on safety and the real possibility test prevents the Commission from referring cases to the Court of Appeal in the interests of ‘justice’, or ‘innocence’. Critics also claim that the Commission does not strike a proper balance between thoroughness and efficiency in the allocation of its finite resources; that it is inconsistent in its response; and that it sometimes does not communicate adequately with applicants and their legal representatives. The chapter concludes with an overview of the book's key research goals as well as the methods employed to realise them.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121696585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reasons to DoubtPub Date : 2019-01-31DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0006
C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"Triage: The Application Screening Process","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines how the Criminal Cases Review Commission makes sense of approximately 1,400 applications it receives each year, focusing on the mechanisms that are in place for stage one of decision-making — that is, cases are screened in or out of the process. Drawing on Keith Hawkins' theoretical framework of ‘surround’, ‘field’ and ‘frame’, it considers how the Commission screens out applications early through a ‘triage’ process. The chapter first describes the four types of applications received by the Commission before discussing individual commissioners' decision frames, the new screening policy that has been introduced at stage one decision-making, and decision frames in relation to the surround and field. It also analyses the Commission's approach to guilty pleas, the impact of legal representation on stage one decisions, and drivers of stage one decision-making. It shows that the Commission, in practice, uses ‘triggers’ as shortcuts to help guide decision-making at stage one.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132946733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reasons to DoubtPub Date : 2019-01-31DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0014
C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"Last Chance for Justice","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0014","url":null,"abstract":"This concluding chapter summarises the book's key findings and examines the main cultural and structural influences on the Criminal Cases Review Commission's decision-making. It begins with a discussion of three significant changes to the Commission's ‘surround’: reductions in legal aid for defendants and appellants; growing evidence of non-disclosure of potentially exculpatory evidence by police and prosecution; and the declining reliability of forensic science evidence. The chapter then considers the critics' claim that the Commission's referral rate is too low and how this raises concerns about access to justice, along with developments in the surround in relation to the ‘field’ and the ‘frame’. It also analyses variability in the Commission's response to cases and its relationship with various ‘stakeholders’. Finally, it looks at the notion that the Commission is too ‘deferential’ to the Court of Appeal when it comes to making decisions about which cases meet the ‘real possibility test’.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131620216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reasons to DoubtPub Date : 2019-01-31DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0005
C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"The Nature of Applications to the Commission","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the nature of applications for wrongful convictions that the Criminal Cases Review Commission receives and the kinds of issues raised by applicants. It highlights the potential flaws of applications presented to the Commission, such as those relating to investigations conducted by police and prosecutors. It also reviews the extant literature on the sources of wrongful conviction to explain the range of possible misconduct and legal, scientific, or human error that might lead to an applicant being wrongfully convicted, or to believing themselves to be so. A number of sex cases and ‘expert evidence’ cases are discussed to illustrate the fallibility of witnesses, vulnerable suspects, the fallibility of science and expert testimony, due process failures, and the pervasive influence of prejudice and fear. The chapter concludes with some reflections on the changing nature of wrongful convictions over the past decade or two.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131869527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reasons to DoubtPub Date : 2019-01-31DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0010
C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"Responding to Applicants’ Claims of Inadequate Defence","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0010","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the Criminal Cases Review Commission's response to applicants' claims of inadequate defence or breaches of procedural rules by their legal representative at trial. It first considers the Commission's response to ‘typical’ applications, where the applicant accuses his/her defence solicitor or counsel of procedural irregularities or incompetence, before presenting a case study that illustrates how the Commission handles a particular category of wrongful conviction cases: refugees and asylum seekers who entered the UK illegally. These cases highlight the potential for a more reciprocal relationship between the Commission and its ‘decision field’ and ‘surround’, and most adopted a clear legal decision frame. The chapter also discusses the challenges in responding to claims of legal incompetence and concludes with an analysis of the Commission's proactive responses to inadequate defence and legal representation.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128427795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reasons to DoubtPub Date : 2019-01-31DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0008
C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"Complainant Credibility in Sexual Offence Cases","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the Criminal Cases Review Commission's approach to sexual offence cases that tend to present evidence pertaining to the credibility of the complainant. Drawing on forty-six cases reviewed by the Commission during the period 1998–2011, the chapter considers how the Commission establishes complainant credibility by discussing its decision ‘field’ in relation to the changing environment of the ‘surround’. It also explores developments in the field before and after 2006, the Court of Appeal's stance on the type of credibility that might persuade it to quash convictions, and the wider politics and media contribution to the growing concerns about victims of historical sexual abuse. Finally, it analyses the Commission's response to changes in the surround — driven by real experience of victim bashing and evidence of wrongful convictions — and identifies contrasting decision frames: a frame that is sensitive to the changing surround versus a frame concerned with wrongful convictions.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131065892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reasons to DoubtPub Date : 2019-01-31DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0001
C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"Responding to Wrongful Convictions","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter provides a background on the Criminal Cases Review Commission of England and Wales, first by tracing its origins and remit and then comparing its post-conviction review procedures with those of other jurisdictions. It was the Criminal Appeal Act 1907, which established the Court of Criminal Appeal, that introduced the first system of regular appeals against criminal conviction in England and Wales. The Court of Criminal Appeal was the forerunner of today's Court (Criminal Division), created in 1966. Since the Commission started work in 1997, it has received thousands of applications relating to wrongful convictions and/or sentences. After discussing the history of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in the UK, the chapter considers post-conviction review in other parts of the world, focusing on Scotland, Norway, North Carolina, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116712874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reasons to DoubtPub Date : 2019-01-31DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0007
C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"Managing Uncertainty in Forensic and Expert Evidence Cases","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines issues arising from cases that turn on forensic and expert evidence, focusing on how the Criminal Cases Review Commission investigates such applications and makes its decisions. Drawing on a sample of sixty-one cases involving forty-two applicants, the chapter shows how the Commission makes decisions in cases that ‘turn on’ forensic science and expert testimony. It also considers the influence of developments in the ‘surround’ of the Commission and how the surround affects the Commission's decision field — the broad setting within which decision-making at the Commission takes place. Finally, it analyses the role of decision frames in the Commission's decision-making on forensic and expert evidence cases, noting that such frames are characterised by uncertainty and even anxiety. Concerns about the interpretation and presentation of forensic evidence at trial are discussed, along with the legal and narrative frames of decision-making in forensic and expert evidence cases.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130725379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reasons to DoubtPub Date : 2019-01-31DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0011
C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"Working Cooperatively with Other Criminal Justice Institutions","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0011","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines how the Criminal Cases Review Commission works with two members of the criminal justice system in conducting investigations: the police and the Court of Appeal. It analyses a variety of cases, including those rare cases where the Commission uses its powers — under section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 — to appoint an investigating officer to carry out enquiries to assist in the exercise of any of its functions. The chapter shows how the Commission deals with the investigating officer in section 19 cases and how it incorporates the results of the investigation into its decision on whether or not to refer a case back to the Court. It also explores the Commission's decision frames when it manages a section 19 investigation and when it works for the Court on section 15 investigations. Finally, it looks at section 15 investigations that involved alleged jury bias or misconduct.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124452536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reasons to DoubtPub Date : 2019-01-31DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0009
C. Hoyle, Mai Sato
{"title":"Responding to Applicants’ Allegations of Policing Without Integrity","authors":"C. Hoyle, Mai Sato","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198794578.003.0009","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the Criminal Cases Review Commission's response to claims that policing without integrity affects the safety of the applicant's conviction. It first considers cases of wrongful conviction that led to the establishment of two royal commissions on criminal procedure and criminal justice before discussing whether the inclusion of allegations of police misconduct can be the ‘kiss of death for an application to the Commission’ and whether the test of unsafety is more widely protective than a test of innocence. It then explores how the Commission's ‘surround’ influences its decision field and how it assumes a legal frame in making crucial decisions regarding evidence of improper policing. It also analyses cases with police misconduct and non-disclosure as a ground for referral before concluding with an overview of past, present, and future challenges faced by the Commission with regard to the issue of policing without integrity.","PeriodicalId":425336,"journal":{"name":"Reasons to Doubt","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131721402","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：