Hidden in Plain View
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Stirling Online Research Repository HIDDEN IN PLAIN VIEW: The impact of popular beliefs and perceptions, held as factual knowledge about the Criminal Justice System, on incidences of wrongful accusation and conviction. SANDRA LEAN A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Stirling for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. February 2012 CONTENTS Acknowledgements v Abstract vi CHAPTER ONE The Criminal Justice System: common beliefs and perceptions 1 Introduction 1 Concepts of „truth‟ and „reasonable‟ in criminal justice 2 Knowledge about, and confidence in, the CJS 5 Factors leading to wrongful conviction 6 Expert evidence 9 Appeals and overturned convictions 10 Misperceptions and wrongful accusations and/or convictions 11 The wrongly convicted and the media 14 CHAPTER TWO Literature and Theoretical Perspectives 23 Introduction 23 Perceptions of truth and law 38 The appeals system 42 Policing 45 Government 51 Media 57 Conclusions 69 CHAPTER THREE Methodology 73 Introduction Semi-structured interview: 77 Approaches taken 77 Methods 80 Pilot studies 82 Selection of participants 84 Data collection and recording 86 Processing and analysis 89 Limitations and potential weaknesses 92 Survey: Approaches taken 94 Methods 95 Pilot studies 96 Selection of participants 97 Data collection and recording 98 Processing and analysis 99 Limitations and potential weaknesses 100 Ethical considerations: Semi-structured interviews 100 Survey 106 Researcher 107 Conclusions 110 ii CHAPTER FOUR Police Investigations 113 Introduction Dependence on Investigating Officers or Information and 119 Guidance Trust and Confidence in Police 126 The Role of Victims 131 Safeguards and Accountability 134 Initial contact with police: witnesses 135 Initial contact with police: suspects 143 Conclusions 157 CHAPTER FIVE Evidence 165 Introduction 165 Truth as evidence 169 No evidence 171 Evidence as defined by defence teams 173 Evidence as provable and/or supportable 175 „Obvious‟ evidence 177 Identification evidence 178 Police statements as evidence 180 Evidence taken „at its highest‟ 181 Privilege against self incrimination 181 Expert and scientific evidence 184 Conclusions 193 CHAPTER SIX Legal Advice and Representation, and Trials 195 Introduction 195 Duty solicitors 201 Defence teams and trial preparation 211 Trials 224 Judges 230 Conclusions 234 CHAPTER SEVEN Post Conviction Processes 239 Immediate aftermath of conviction 239 Progressing without legal representation 243 Progressing with the original defence team 247 Appeal processes 252 Post conviction organisations 264 Innocence Projects 267 Internet campaigns 270 Media and public perceptions 272 Other routes 283 CCRC (England and Wales) 286 SCCRC (Scotland) 289 Conclusions 291 iii CHAPTER EIGHT Conclusions 295 Introduction 295 Political influences 296 Legal versus lay understanding and applications of common terms and phrases 299 Police investigations 301 Specialist knowledge 304 Concepts of evidence, truth and trials 306 Communication with legal representatives 310 Media, science and law 314 Further research 322 Bibliography 327 Appendix I Core Interview Schedule 351 Appendix II Questionnaire 355 Appendix III Survey results 361 Appendix IV Campaign Groups 365 Appendix V Codes of Ethics 367 iv Acknowledgements There are so many people who have helped to make this thesis possible that it is not possible to acknowledge them all individually; I am grateful to each and every one of you. I would sincerely like to thank, in particular, all of the individuals and families who so freely and candidly shared their stories with me, a complete stranger, and also encouraged others, in very difficult circumstances, to do so as well. Without your experiences, insights, and knowledge, this work could never have happened. Also, my thanks to the legal professionals, experienced campaigners, media personnel and others whose extensive knowledge and understanding of Criminal Justice processes has been invaluable. My supervisors Professor Gill McIvor and Dr Margaret Malloch, of the University of Stirling, provided support, encouragement, assistance and guidance, especially in the darkest moments; my thanks to them for keeping me focused and committed – their input helped enormously in allowing me to develop the research. Special thanks to Stephen Manning, of Checkpoint Publishing. Without his encouragement and enthusiasm, I may not have been in a position to undertake this research. Also to Peter Hill, who so kindly shared his years of experience, and extensive library of resources, including material I could not have sourced elsewhere. Last, but certainly not least, I am eternally grateful for the unfailing support and encouragement from my daughters, Chelsea and Louise. v ABSTRACT Available research demonstrates that public perceptions and beliefs about the Criminal Justice System (CJS) differ from its actual processes and procedures, but there is little research on the effects of such a difference, specifically with regard to wrongful accusation and/or conviction of factually innocent persons, and their families. Perceptions and beliefs, held as reliable and accurate knowledge, may impact on wrongful accusation/conviction of the factually innocent, both on the lived experiences of wrongly accused/convicted persons themselves, and on perceptions held about them (and responses to calls for case reviews) within the wider public. Although a great deal of research has been carried out on the subject of wrongful conviction generally, this has focussed, in the main, on legal, procedural and structural causes of wrongful conviction, and, in particular, on a small number of „high profile‟ cases. This research examines perceptions and beliefs held as knowledge by individuals claiming to be factually innocent, wrongly accused/convicted persons, and the results of attempts to employ such perceptions and beliefs to maintain claims of innocence. Further, the experiences of family and friends of the wrongly convicted, whose lives continue in the community following the conviction of their family member, are examined, with particular attention to the interface of beliefs and perceptions between such families and the wider community. To a lesser extent, the role of the media, in shaping public opinion, the effects of media coverage on trial procedures and outcomes, and non-reporting or selective reporting is also addressed. vi A series of semi-structured interviews was carried out throughout the UK, with wrongly accused/convicted persons, family members of those individuals, and members of groups and organisations working to highlight the problems of wrongful accusation and conviction. A survey aimed at examining key perceptions and beliefs, held as factual knowledge about the CJS within the wider public, was also conducted. The analysis of the data indicated that not only do individuals and families attempt to employ erroneous perceptions and beliefs as factual knowledge in cases of wrongful accusation and conviction, but that such attempts feed into and support the case against the wrongly accused (in direct opposition to the aims and objectives of those employing them). Furthermore, knowledge of the actual workings of the CJS (held by CJS actors) can be, and is, used to exploit the ignorance of those so accused, and their family members. This is made possible because legal meanings of key words and phrases are vastly different from their commonly understood meanings, a factor known only to CJS actors, and not, generally, to the wider public. Political rhetoric and media representations support and reinforce those commonly held understandings, simultaneously maintaining the inaccessible code of actual CJS processes, thereby influencing public perceptions of those who are accused and convicted. vii viii CHAPTER ONE The Criminal Justice System: common perceptions and beliefs Introduction Research has demonstrated that public perceptions of the CJS are greatly removed from the reality of how the system actually operates (e.g. Green, 2008, Naughton, 2006, JUSTICE, 2002a, Green, 1997, 1996). Further, many people believe that their perceptions constitute reliable and accurate knowledge, whereas research indicates that they are, in fact, often wildly inaccurate (Gray, 2009, Roberts & Hough, 2007, Garside, 2003). One area where public perceptions and the reality of the CJS are thrown into sharp relief is that of miscarriage of justice, and, more specifically, wrongful conviction of the factually innocent. The definition of wrongful accusation and conviction of the factually innocent, for the purposes of this study, are those accusations and convictions which began with a police investigation that concluded that there was a case against an individual which was both chargeable, and actionable in a court of law, that individual maintaining that s/he did not commit the crime. This distinction is made in order to properly emphasise a specific type of wrongful accusation/conviction and to differentiate from, for example, wrongful accusations made as part of official denials (e.g. the blaming of Liverpool football fans in the Hillsborough Stadium disaster) or detentions and convictions obtained under anti- terrorist legislation. This distinction is necessary to demonstrate the apparent „ordinariness‟ of processes and events in the cases studied, in contrast to the extra- 1 ordinary circumstances of large scale incidents or the perceived