"It's so easy to assume that the science has been correctly applied and correctly interpreted. Knowing who to approach and when in this context is key to this problem and that is where the CCRC fails. Despite being the only body with the power to request documents and exhibits for further testing, they frequently refuse to do this, arguing that it would be pure speculation."
"The CCRC has faced criticism over its handling of cases including those of Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in jail for a rape he did not commit; and Peter Sullivan, whose murder conviction was overturned in May after 38 years. In June, a parliamentary inquiry criticised complacency with respect to scientific understanding within the CCRC and recommended recruitment of permanent staff members with scientific backgrounds."
The Criminal Cases Review Commission lacks forensic expertise and refuses to engage external scientific specialists for appeals. The CCRC relies on legal professionals who do not fully understand the scientific foundations of many convictions. The body frequently declines to request documents and exhibits for further testing, often characterising such testing as speculative. The CCRC sometimes denies access because it assumes the defence could have taken the same steps during trial, even when evidence appears to have been flagrantly misunderstood. High-profile wrongful convictions and a parliamentary inquiry exposed complacency and recommended recruitment of permanent scientific staff. External forensic advice is essential to address scientific misunderstandings.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]