Exploring the UK Innocence Movement: Tension, Reconfiguration and Theorisation

Exploring the UK innocence movement: tension, reconfiguration and theorisation This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Holly Greenwood Cardiff School of Law and Politics ESRC April 2017 DECLARATION This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at this or any other university or place of learning, nor is being submitted concurrently in candidature for any degree or other award. Signed: Holly Greenwood Date: 13/04/17 STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD Signed: Holly Greenwood Date: 13/04/17 STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The views expressed are my own. Signed: Holly Greenwood Date: 13/04/17 STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed: Holly Greenwood Date: 13/04/17 STATEMENT 4: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BAR ON ACCESS I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access previously approved by the Academic Standards & Quality Committee. Signed: Holly Greenwood Date: 13/04/17 Summary This is the first in-depth empirical research into the UK “innocence movement,” which refers to the establishment of innocence projects (IPs) across the UK. IPs are university clinics in which students investigate cases of alleged miscarriages of justice. The Innocence Network UK (INUK) was founded in 2004 and assisted in the development of thirty-six IPs across the UK. This thesis utilised empirical methods undertaking semi-structured interviews with past and present leaders of IPs and other criminal appeal units. It provides three original insights into the UK innocence movement. First, it explored the distinctive model of IPs offered in the core literature and identified several underlying tensions within it. However, the research found the majority of sampled IPs did not conform to this model. Thus for heuristic purposes, and to examine the contrasting aims and objectives of criminal appeal clinics, the thesis sets out two ideal types and uses the evidence from interviews to place the sampled projects along a continuum between these. This section illustrated that the tensions within the literature model of IPs resulted in the sampled projects either evolving away from this approach, or not adopting it in the first place. Secondly, the thesis asks whether the innocence movement can be seen to follow a “rise and fall” trajectory, as the initial expansion of INUK was followed by its closure and the demise of several IPs. Instead, it is argued that the movement is better understood as having undergone a reconfiguration, and that the future landscape for miscarriage of justice work looks likely to be very different from that portrayed in the literature. Finally, the thesis adapts Luhmann’s Social Systems theory as a theoretical framework for examining the evolution of the UK innocence movement. The analysis concludes that this can provide theoretical insights into why the original aims and objectives of IPs were not realised. Insight is also drawn from Nobles and Schiff and their account of systems theory, which is used to further explore the tensions within the IP concept. The thesis conclusion reflects on the findings and offers suggestions for future research opportunities in these areas of legal education and analysis. i Acknowledgements Completion of this PhD thesis would not have been possible without the input and support of several individuals. I would firstly like to express huge gratitude to my supervisor Professor Stewart Field, who has supported me throughout my time as a postgraduate. His contribution has been invaluable, and without his feedback and engagement in this thesis it certainly would not have been possible. I would also like to thank Professor Daniel Wincott, who has acted as my second supervisor and whose insight has been a significant contribution to this thesis. I also extend sincere appreciation to Dr Russell Sandberg, who has dedicated a vast amount of time to helping develop my theoretical analysis, but has also supported me throughout the progression of my PhD. Extreme gratitude and appreciation is also extended to Professor Julie Price and Dr Dennis Eady who have provided unwavering support to me throughout my PhD, my MSc and my undergraduate degree. These two individuals have been an extremely important part of my time at Cardiff University, and without their help this thesis would also not have been possible. I would also like to acknowledge the wonderful postgraduate community within the Cardiff School of Law and Politics. Firstly, thank you to Sharron Alldred, Sarah Kennedy and Helen Calvert for their support and help throughout the PhD experience. Furthermore, I thank Dr Rachel Cahill-O’Callaghan for her help with this thesis, and also for her work in cultivating a collaborative research culture within the postgraduate community. Furthermore, thanks and appreciation go towards all my colleagues and fellow PhD students who have always been an immense support and have been extremely important to my time at Cardiff University. 2 Table of Contents Introduction .………………………………………p.1 Chapter 1: Literature Review ……………………………………….p.7 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework: Social ……………………………………...p.53 Systems Theory Chapter 3: Methodology ……………………………………...p.75 Chapter 4: Results Section 1: Constructing ……………………………………...p.97 an innocence project ‘model’ Chapter 5: Results Section 2: The UK ……………………………………p.140 innocence movement: a rise and fall? Chapter 6: The UK innocence movement: ……………………………………p.177 Insights from Social Systems Theory Conclusion ……………………………………p.226 Bibliography Appendix 1: Interview Guide Appendix 2: Coding ‘nodes’ Appendix 3: Information Sheet and Consent Form iii Chapter Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………….p.1 Chapter 1: Literature Review: Introduction .......................................................................................................p.7 1. Context: the American “innocence movement” ...........................................p.7 2. The UK “Innocence Movement ...................................................................p.12 2.1 Background and Context ................................................................p.13 2.2 Innocence Network UK (INUK) ....................................................p.14 2.3 Aims and Objectives of IPs ............................................................p.17 2.4 Constructing an IP model from the UK literature ………………..p.27 3. Potential Tensions for IPs ............................................................................p.29 3.1 Interaction of IPs reform agenda and casework role .....................p.29 3.2 IPs role in legal education .............................................................p.34 3.3 Evaluating the role of IPs within the criminal justice system........p.39 4. The UK innocence movement in the international context .........................p.41 4.1 Casework and exonerations ...........................................................p.42 4.2 Reform ...........................................................................................p.44 4.3 Education .......................................................................................p.46 5. Potential challenges for IPs ……………….................................................p.49 Conclusion .......................................................................................................p.51 Research Questions ..........................................................................................p.51 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework: Social Systems Theory 1. Social Systems Theory as a theoretical framework ………………………...p.53 2. An introduction to Social Systems Theory………………………………….p.53 3. Consequences of Social Systems Theory for Law ………………………….p.61 4. Social Systems Theory: Potential implications for IPs ……………………..p.65 4.1 Insights from Nobles and Schiff …………………………………..p.65 4.1.1 Competing constructions of a “miscarriage of justice” …………p.65 iv 4.1.2 Criminal Appeals: protecting law’s finality and authority ………..p.69 4.1.3 Consequences of autopoietic theory: Limitations on interpretation p.73 5. An Exploratory Framework: IPs and Social Systems Theory ………………..p. 74 5.1 Research Questions ……………………………………………….....p.74 Chapter 3: Methodology Introduction ......................................................................................................p.75 1. Research Aims ..............................................................................................p.75 2. Research Design ...........................................................................................p.76 2.1 Semi-structured interviews..............................................................p.76 2.2 Interview guide ...............................................................................p.78 3. Research Strategy .........................................................................................p.80 4. Sampling .......................................................................................................p.81 5. Ethical issues ................................................................................................p.85

Load more