Williams concluded that Harry`s death was caused by tremors. However, as conflicting experts challenged Williams` verdict on the grounds that there remained conjecture in identifying the specific mechanism that caused Harry`s trauma,7 it has not been established, according to Professor Berry, which could cause confusion among jurors. A similar “system failure”8 also occurred in R. v. Harris,9 in which a collective of highly respected experts, based on assumptions10 and old, perhaps discredited theories from the Journal of John Caffey,11 misdiagnosed that the cause of infant Patrick`s death was shaky baby syndrome without sufficient scientific evidence. For the reason that the classic symptoms of the triad head were named during Patrick`s autopsy and therefore the judgment of the inexperienced judge was influenced by expert opinions who believed that these were facts and not mere opinions. Fortunately, Harris` ordeal changed attitudes towards shaken baby syndrome, stating that the standard symptoms of the triad would no longer be “automatically or necessarily” sufficient to end death by tremor, and so Attorney General Lord Goldsmith reviewed 88 cases of shaken baby syndrome,12 declaring three of them dangerous and referring them to the Court of Appeal. Jeffrey Gutman was quoted by Bloomberg Law about exculpatory convicts suing for miscarriage of justice. Phillips, E. (2011), Miscarriages of Justice and the Forensic Expert: The Impact of Law Commission Reforms. Medico-legal Journal [online], 79(3), p. 99.
Available from: Misvoices of Justice and the Forensic Expert: The Impact of the Law Commission`s Reforms – Edward Phillips, 2011 (sagepub) , accessed December 21, 2020 Prior to joining law school in 1994, Jeffrey S. Gutman was a litigator in the Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice (DOJ). His work at the Department of Justice focused on representing the federal government in constitutional and administrative challenges to federal laws and regulations in federal courts across the country. Among the cases in which he has argued have been challenges to the Closure of Military Bases Act, gun control laws and regulations, laws on the collection of fees by federal employees, savings and loan reform laws, and private meetings of government advisers. Professor Gutman worked for a federal district judge in California after graduating from law school. He directs the Public Justice Advocacy Clinic, is acting co-director of the Jacob Burns Community Legal Clinics, teaches civil procedure law, and was associate dean of academic affairs from 2000 to 2008. Professor Gutman is Editor-in-Chief of the Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys, served on the Board of Governors of the District of Columbia Bar from 2011 to 2014, and mediates in civil matters before the DC Court of Appeals and the DC Superior Court`s Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Program. He recently represented four men who were exonerated of crimes by DNA evidence and served decades in prison for civil lawsuits against the District of Columbia government. A miscarriage of justice is an ambiguous phase capable of evoking many different meanings that are interpreted and influenced by life experiences. The widely accepted definition is failure to obtain justice.1 However, it undermines the criminal justice system, which works hard to bring justice to all by convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent.2 Unfortunately, this ambition is diminished by the endless statistics that defendants are still unjustly imprisoned.3 This is because some experts are responsible for fabricating and concealing evidence. Clark`s study replicates similar characteristics. The third question, relating to this evidence and its implications for the miscarriage of justice, supports the prosecution`s error, which occurs in pointing out that the innocent explanation is highly improbable for a number of facts and therefore extrapolates that the conviction is therefore correct.
This happened in the case where the jury was essentially faced with two scenarios, either the two children died naturally, with a chance of 1 in 73 million, or the mother killed the children. It seems fair to conclude that because of the ordinary nature of the jury, it would be difficult not to assume that Sally is responsible in these circumstances. However, this assumption refutes Sally`s presumption of innocence and thus interferes with her right to a fair trial, which coincides with the recurring theme of injustice in this case. Given the grossly unfair manner in which this case was presented,30 it would be unfair to say that only one point defines miscarriage in this summary and that miscarriage is instead formed on a collective basis of poor provision of expert evidence, admissibility, and jury confidence. Clark`s release in January 2003 prompted Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to order a review of hundreds of other cases.  Two other women convicted of murdering their children, Donna Anthony and Angela Cannings, were convicted and released from prison. Trupti Patel, also charged with the murder of her three children, was acquitted in June 2003. In any case, Roy Meadow had testified to the improbability of several infant deaths in the same family. Misleading experts led to a “spectacular” miscarriage of justice8 in the case of Sally Clark.
On November 9, 1999, the lawyer and mother of former good character 13, Sally Clark, was convicted of the murder of her 2 young children. The first child, Christopher, died at the age of 3 months, 3 years before sentencing. An autopsy performed by pathologist Dr. Williams decided that the child`s death as SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) due to a miscarriage of justice emerges from the trial`s evidence, disclosed and undisclosed, invoked to Sally`s detriment. The first concern about miscarriage stems from the change in opinion of experts, which is arguably the first step towards a bad and unfair decision in this case. Dr. Williams, as mentioned earlier, first mentioned a respiratory infection as Christopher`s cause of death, and then 14 months later he changed his diagnosis in court to completely rule out the possibility of infection as a cause of death. While it is common for experts to change their minds as soon as new evidence emerges, such as Professor Green`s change of opinion in the Clark case regarding Under the supervision of Carolyn Hoyle, Laura Tilt (former research student) examined the experiences of people wrongly convicted after their convictions were overturned by the Court of Appeal and released from prison. Their joint work on the experience of acquitted persons and the decline in state compensation for wrongfully convicted persons has been published in: C. Hoyle & L.
Tilt (2018) “The Benefits of Social Capital for Wrongfully Convicted Persons: Given the Promise of a Resettlement Model”, The Howard Journal of Crime & Justice and in C. Hoyle & L. Tilt (2020, Number 1) “Not Innocent Enough: State Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice in England and Wales”, Criminal Law Review. 1 2015, available from www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/miscarriage-of-justice (last accessed February 14, 2015). During my review, I was appalled by the shabby way these cases were evaluated. It was clear that sound medical principles were abandoned in favour of oversimplification, overinterpretation, exclusion of relevant data and, in several cases, presentation of non-existent results.  Due to the jargony nature of the evidence and the absence of eyewitnesses, expert witnesses were called upon to “provide” information to the court “outside the general knowledge and experience of the jury”18 , as it appears that the jury would have difficulty drawing its own conclusion on the facts of the case alone.17 Recent studies19 have found that miscarriages of justice resulting from expert testimony are caused by misleading, incorrect and incomplete information, or by an expert who provides information on unknown areas outside his area of expertise that are still considered valid in court. Unfortunately, the Sally Clark case suffered both expert witness injuries and concerns about expert witness testimony. 14 R v Clark  EWCA Crim 1020, para 1 15 R v Clark  EWCA Crim 1020 16 R v Clark  All ER (D) 1219 17Vincent Scheurer, “Convicted on Statistics? – Understanding Uncertainty` (Understandinguncertainty) [online], Available at: understandinguncertainty/node/545 , accessed 21 December 2020 18 Folks V Chad  3 Doug Kn 157, , (Lord Mansfield) 19 Edward Phillips (2011), Misaccidents of justice and the Forensic Expert: The impact Of Law Commission Reforms. Medico-legal Journal [online], 79(3), p. 99. Available from: Misvoices of Justice and the Forensic Expert: The Impact of the Law Commission`s Reforms – Edward Phillips, 2011 (sagepub) , accessed December 21, 2020 Mistakes are accepted as natural human acts, but in the context of the criminal justice system, an error should never be taken lightly because it has a detrimental effect on the victim.
officially known as a miscarriage of justice.