scholarly journals Learning by experience on the Innocence Project in London: the employer/employee environment

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 173
Author(s):  
Louise Hewitt
Keyword(s):  
Law Students ◽  
Clinical Learning ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Pro Bono ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Appeals Process ◽  
Innocence Project ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Court Of Appeal

<p>The Innocence Project London is a <em>pro bono</em> project dedicated to investigating wrongful convictions in the context of individuals who claim actual innocence i.e. they did not commit the crime for which they have been convicted. Law students undertake work on the cases of convicted individuals who have maintained their innocence but have exhausted the criminal appeals process. The only avenue available to these individuals is to make an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which was set up to investigate the cases of people who believe they have been wrongfully convicted. The CCRC has the power to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal but requires new evidence or a new legal argument not identified at the time of the trial, which might have changed the whole outcome of the trial had the jury had been given a chance to consider it.</p><p>Whilst the notion of innocence projects has been much debated in literature the purpose of this paper is to present the pedagogy of the Innocence Project London and the meaningful learning opportunity it provides to students. The pedagogy combines experiential learning with elements of work based learning to create an employer/ employee environment. Law students are ‘employed’ to work on the Project where the employment process starts with a two-stage application. The clinical learning model on an innocence project is distinct from the traditional clinic approach, in that students start work at the end of a case rather than at the beginning. The problem-solving therefore is developed in the context of critical judgement based on what happened when the case was decided in court as opposed to how the case should be presented in court. The learning for the students has been significant.</p>

18. Criminal and civil appeals

2020 ◽  
pp. 657-682
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley ◽  
Birju Kotecha
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Appeals Process

This chapter introduces readers to the appeals process in criminal and civil cases. It explores the grounds upon which appeals may be based in criminal cases, including the concepts of ‘fresh evidence’ and ‘lurking doubt’ and considers appeals by way of case stated, applications for judicial review of decisions, and Attorney General’s references. If a criminal appeal has been dismissed, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which was set up to examine potential miscarriages of justice, may refer a case back to the appeal court in certain circumstances. The chapter highlights some of the criticisms of the CCRC’s role and effectiveness. The avenues of appeal in civil cases are also discussed, including leapfrog appeals and second appeals.

Making Sense of Decision-making

2019 ◽  
pp. 28-46
Author(s):  
Carolyn Hoyle ◽  
Mai Sato
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Real Possibility ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
Legal Decision Making ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
Key Features ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This chapter examines decision-making and the use of discretion within the Criminal Cases Review Commission using socio-legal analysis, with particular emphasis on the application of the real possibility test at screening, investigation, and referral back to the Court of Appeal. It also describes the theoretical framework used in the review of the Commission's discretion and decision-making. The chapter begins with a discussion of how the Commission decides whether there is new evidence and whether that evidence gives rise to a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will find the conviction to be unsafe. It then considers the legal and socio-legal literature on discretion, highlighting the key features of discretionary behaviour and how it is facilitated and constrained in practice. Finally, it explores three concepts proposed by Keith Hawkins in the context of legal decision-making: ‘surround’, ‘field’, and ‘frame’.

scholarly journals Fresh Evidence and Factual Innocence in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal

2017 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 303-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Jury Verdict ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Factual Error ◽  
The Law ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Broad Consensus

One of the main criticisms of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal has been that it is deficient at identifying and correcting the wrongful convictions of the factually innocent. These criticisms stem from the court’s perceived difficulties in relation to appeals based on factual error. The main ground of appeal for errors of fact is fresh evidence, and these appeals are particularly problematic because they require the court to trespass on the role of the jury somewhat in assessing new evidence on appeal against the evidence at trial in order to determine whether the conviction is unsafe. The broad consensus is that the court’s difficulties are caused by three main issues: its deference to the jury verdict; its reverence for the principle of finality; and a lack of resources to deal with huge numbers appealing. There is less agreement in identifying the source of the problems because it is not clear whether they derive from legislative powers or the interpretation of those powers by the judiciary. This article uses both qualitative and quantitative empirical research in order to try to determine what the court’s approach is in fresh evidence appeals and, if there are problems, whether it is the law or the interpretation of the law by the judiciary which is to blame. It also proposes reforms designed to make it easier for the court to rectify miscarriages of justice.

16. Criminal and civil appeals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Appeals Process

This chapter introduces readers to the appeals process in criminal and civil cases. It explores the grounds upon which appeals may be based in criminal cases, including the concepts of ‘fresh evidence’ and ‘lurking doubt’. If a criminal appeal has been dismissed, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which was set up to examine potential miscarriages of justice, may refer a case back to the appeal court in certain circumstances. The chapter highlights some of the criticisms of the CCRC’s role and effectiveness. The avenues of appeal in civil cases are also discussed.

The Caribbean Court of Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvatore Caserta ◽  
Mikael Rask Madsen
Keyword(s):  
Privy Council ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Caribbean Community ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Sociopolitical Context ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
Caribbean Court Of Justice ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This chapter analyzes the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the creation of which was regarded as the culmination of the Caribbean’s long and protracted process toward independence from its former colonizers. Formally, the CCJ was instantaneously empowered to hear cases involving Caribbean Community law (Community law). The CCJ was also empowered to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in London—a last court of appeal for civil and criminal cases from the Caribbean and the most visible remnant of the British Empire’s former rule. The CCJ’s unique double jurisdiction—original over Community law and appellate over other civil and criminal matters—underscores the complex sociopolitical context and transformation of which it is a part. Ultimately, the CCJ’s growing authority has increasingly made the Court the institutional intersection for the convergence of these two different paths toward establishing the Caribbean as a legally integrated regional unity.

Printers to Hendrik Niclaes: Plantin and Augustijn van Hasselt

Quaerendo ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 247-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Valkema Blouw
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Literary Sources ◽  
The Family ◽  
Religious Sect ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
First Time ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Publishing Business

AbstractFrom the chronicles of the Family of Love we know that, besides printers in Deventer and later in Cologne, both Plantin and Augustijn van Hasselt printed for this religious sect. On the basis of this information quite a large number of publications have hitherto been attributed to Plantin, while only one single edition in Latin was reckoned to be the work of Augustijn. An analysis of the typography, however, shows that apart from Hendrik Niclaes's chief work, Den Spegel der Gherechticheyt, Plantin only printed two of his minor writings and that all the other ascriptions to Plantin must be revised in favour of Augustijn van Hasselt. In 1561-2 Augustijn was running a printing shop in the Dutch town of Kampen, specially set up by HN for the purpose of publishing those of his works that had not previously been printed. Plantin, who was partly involved in this enterprise, took the opportunity to have a book printed on this press for his publishing business. The analysis providing the typographical evidence of this collaboration proves for the first time the accuracy of the literary sources as regards Plantin's involvement in the publication of the works of Hendrik Niclaes. In the presentation of the new evidence it was necessary to establish more clearly the date of Plantin's '[1561]' inventory and which roman and German types he owned at what times. The article ends with some notes regarding the end of the 'Bohmbargen' press at Cologne.

The Nature of Applications to the Commission

2019 ◽  
pp. 68-84
Author(s):  
Carolyn Hoyle ◽  
Mai Sato
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Human Error ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Wrongful Conviction ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Extant Literature ◽  
The Past ◽  
Process Failures

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.

The Court

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilmann Büttner
Keyword(s):  
Civil Service ◽  
Complete System ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Civil Service Tribunal ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The UPC, universally referred to as ‘the Court’ throughout the text of the Agreement pursuant to Art 2(a) UPCA, is to be regarded legally as a legal entity sui generis (Art 4(1) UPCA) and structurally as a uniform entity. The Court entity as a whole comprises both the judiciary structures, which are the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, and the non-judiciary structures, which are the Registry with sub-registries set up at all divisions of the Court (Art 10(1) and (2) UPCA). The Court’s structure visibly follows that of the CJEU which, according to Art 19 TFEU, comprises as a unitary court the European Court of Justice, the General Court, and the Civil Service Tribunal, thus establishing a complete system of courts.

Surprisingly, there are no official authoritative series of law reports in England to equate with the Queen’s Printers copy of an Act of Parliament. The Stationery Office is responsible for publishing revenue, immigration and social security law cases. However, traditionally, law reports remain in the hands of private publishers. Today, there are numerous, often competitive, private publishers. Although there are no official series of law reports, the courts do respect some reports more than others. A long established, conventional rule is that a law report, if it is to be accepted by the relevant court as an authority, must be prepared by and published under the name of a fully qualified barrister. The greater accuracy of modern reporting, and the vetting by judges, necessitates longer delays before the cases are published. Also, the Law Reports only cover 7% of the cases in the higher courts in any given year. Interesting issues are: (a) who selects which cases to report? (b) how are they selected? Editors select the cases for inclusion in the series of law reports. These are highly trained lawyers, well acquainted with precedent and the likely importance of cases. During the past 150 years publishers of law reports have been generalists or specialists. Some law reports are annotated, particularly for the use of practitioners, others left without annotations, introductions, etc. In addition to reported cases, the Supreme Court Library contains thousands of files of unreported cases. In 1940, the Lord Chancellor’s Department prepared a report: The Report of the Law Reporting Committee. The Committee considered that, after editors had made their choices, ‘What remains is less likely to be a treasure house than a rubbish heap in which a jewel will rarely, if ever, be discovered’ (p 20). (Note the poetic language that forcefully carries the point.) Of course, today, there is a vast range of electronic retrieval systems for accessing details of thousands of unreported cases. This has caused its own problems and there was a legitimate concern that courts would be inundated with cases that did not really contain any new law, but which had been retrieved from electronic sources. In the case of Roberts Petroleum Ltd v Bernard Kenny Ltd [1983] 2 AC 192, the House of Lords took the step of forbidding the citation of unreported cases of the civil division of the Court of Appeal without special leave. The rule remains, however, that to be an accepted version that can be quoted in court the report must have been prepared and published by a barrister. When law students read law reports they must ask: (a) is this report the most authoritative version available? (b) are there fuller versions? (c) if unreported, does this case add to the law? Figure 4.2, below, sets out the types of reports available for the law student to consult.

2012 ◽  
pp. 78-79
Keyword(s):  
Law Students ◽  
Retrieval Systems ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legitimate Concern ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Student ◽  
Law Reports ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Vast Range
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document