Why do miscarriages of justice happen?

V
298
comments
i
e
w

We have already seen how the main reasons that

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