Innocent in the Dark

Preservation of biological evidence can profoundly impact criminal justice as it can be essential to establish the innocence of a convicted person and thus make evident a miscarriage of justice. The paper provides information and insights regarding the State’s duty to preserve biological evidence in criminal justice, thus improving accessibility issues in the post-conviction review in Chile. In doing so, the paper looks beyond Chile’s borders and seeks to obtain lessons from the U.S. States’ preservation statutes. The research uses law comparison to assess and comprehend the appropriateness of Chilean regulation and then to identify areas for improvement in the criminal justice system.

Compensation for Wrongful Conviction/Miscarriage of Justice in Hong Kong in Light of A v Secretary for Justice and Another [2020] hkcfi 427; hcal 176/2018 (11 March 2020)

Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (iccpr) provides for the right to compensation for wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice. In Hong Kong, there are two compensation schemes for people who have been wrongfully convicted – the statutory scheme under Article 11(5) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and the ex gratia scheme (also applicable to wrongful imprisonment). Although there are cases in which Hong Kong courts have dealt with the right to compensation under the ex gratia scheme, it was only in March 2020, in A v Secretary for Justice and Another, that the High Court, for the first time, dealt with a case on the right to compensation under Article 11(5). In this article, the author discusses the right to compensation for wrongful conviction in Hong Kong generally and in particular under Article 11(5) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The author deals with the case of A v Secretary for Justice and Another and illustrates how the High Court’s interpretation of Article 11(5) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance is likely to impact on the right to compensation for wrongful conviction in Hong Kong in the future.

The wrongful imprisonment of the Guildford Four: Who bears the blame?

<p>This paper discusses the wrongful imprisonment of the Guildford Four, and the reasons why this miscarriage of justice occurred. Contrary to popular opinion that the injustice arose due to police malpractice, this paper will conclude that the blame lies primarily with the judiciary for failing to reverse the 1975 decision even in the face of what seemed to be insurmountable contradictory evidence. This paper analyses the role each branch of government played, as well as discussing the role of public perceptions and societal fears of the time.</p>

The wrongful imprisonment of the Guildford Four: Who bears the blame?

<p>This paper discusses the wrongful imprisonment of the Guildford Four, and the reasons why this miscarriage of justice occurred. Contrary to popular opinion that the injustice arose due to police malpractice, this paper will conclude that the blame lies primarily with the judiciary for failing to reverse the 1975 decision even in the face of what seemed to be insurmountable contradictory evidence. This paper analyses the role each branch of government played, as well as discussing the role of public perceptions and societal fears of the time.</p>

The problem of the parties’ explanations as evidence in arbitration courts

The article examines the problem of the parties explanations as evidence in arbitration courts. The author analyzes this problem through the prism of the admissibility of lies in the arbitration process. This problem is resolved from both legal and philosophical and ethical positions. The untruth is something that destroys trust the foundation of society, among other things, it undermines the credibility of the court, which accepts a lie; a lie destroys the person himself. The author reasonably believes that the one who considers a lie in court to be permissible allows the victory of untruth in court, thereby contributing to the transformation of a liar into a triumphant villain with the complicity of the court. Lying leads to dysfunction of justice, allowing lies in the trial is contrary to the very foundations of justice. The entry into force of a judgment based on a lie in one dispute only gives rise to a new dispute between the same parties. The author proves that a negative attitude towards lies is characteristic of both substantive and procedural law. It is concluded that the availability of effective means of protection against lies in the process is consistent with the principle of maintaining citizens confidence in the law and the actions of the state; justice is expected from the courts, not the encouragement of lies and deceit. The author reveals a contradiction between the attitude to judicial errors formed in the Soviet era and the consideration of the procedure of revision based on newly discovered circumstances only to the procedure of revision in the order of self-control, and the actual task of the court to correct judicial errors. It is rightly noted that this approach is extremely difficult to overcome, since new evidence showing the lie of the party is not considered by the courts as newly discovered circumstances. Meanwhile, a decision based on a lie is a miscarriage of justice.

Myths about fingerprint evidence: Basic facts countering miscarriage of justice. Part 2

This is the second part of the study that aims at highlighting twenty-four myths about fingerprint evidence. In this paper, the authors are going to explicate and clarify the difference between the scientific facts and the wrongful concepts that negatively affect the justice system and the effective usage of fingerprint evidence starting from the initial investigation at the crime scene until the final trial at the courtroom.

A felismerési kísérlet összehasonlítása más bizonyítási cselekményekkel

Minden emberi tevékenység magában hordozza a hibázás lehetőségét. Ez alól a kriminalisták, jogalkalmazók sem kivételek. Jogállamban a legsúlyosabb hibakövetkezmény az úgynevezett „justizmord”, „jogi halál”, „bírói halál”, a téves ítélet, a hibás felelősségre vonás, a nem bűnös személy bűnösnek nyilvánítása. (Angol terminusai változatosak: miscarriage of justice, wrongful conviction, mistaken conviction, falsely convicted, falsely sentenced, unsafe conviction.) A felismerésre bemutatás elhibázása „justizmord” veszélyű (kiemelten veszélyes vagy „legveszélyesebb” kategória). Ennek megelőzése érdekében fontos e bizonyítási metódus vizsgálata, összehasonlítása más bizonyítási cselekményekkel.

Andrew Malkinson: A miscarriage of justice?

In the case of Andrew Malkinson, a number of concerning or disturbing features about the conduct of the case by all involved have emerged. Application is therefore being made to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to reconsider and refer the case.

Compensatory Mechanism for Miscarriage of Justice in Cases of Prolonged Delay: The Case of India

There have been several studies on the issue of justice delayed, but no rigid step has been taken in lieu of the victims who suffer as a result of such dawdling processes. Despite the existence of a vast number of provisions in our current legal system, current legal remedies do tend to create an ex gratia obligation but not a statutory obligation for the state to compensate the victims of miscarriage of justice. There is a persistent need for an explicit and detailed law on this subject. The idea underlying this research is to portray the need for a rigid compensatory mechanism for prolonged delays in judicial processes and decisions. Thereby construing a need for strong legislative action towards this issue and reflect upon the grey area in Indian Legal Framework.