March 2020

On 4 March 2020, the Innocence Project London hosted the fourth annual Miscarriages of Justice symposium, which welcome its largest audience to date. Louise Hewitt, Director of the Innocence Project London shares her opening speech on this blog:

“Welcome to the fourth annual Miscarriages of Justice Symposium here at the University of Greenwich. This event not only aims to raise awareness of the work of the Innocence Project London, but also of issues in and with the criminal justice system.

Four years ago, I came up with an idea of getting all the student volunteers from project together to share their work and their ideas. We started off with 50 people coming and listening to the students and I am pleased to say it has grown year after year.

The “innocence project model” of this type of clinical legal education, developed in the United States of America (USA), has become a global model having spread throughout Latin America, Asia, the South Pacific, Africa, and Europe (including England, Ireland, and Wales). It has led to a global awareness of wrongful convictions and the struggle to get innocent people out of prison.  It remains undervalued and unappreciated as a form of clinical legal education despite the numerous skills developed by this type of work, including (but not limited to) factual analysis, legal analysis, legal drafting, investigation, client interviewing, witness interviewing.

The work requires attention to detail, effective communication, interaction with practicing lawyers, and interaction with all aspects of the criminal justice system. There is a degree of educational importance in innocence organisations within the context of legal education and the benefits its brings to students learning and ability to critically assess criminal justice systems as well as acquire a wider awareness of problems associated with criminal appeals processes.

The Innocence Project London (IPL) as a pro-bono clinic, was established in 2010 with the aim of investigating alleged wrongful convictions of individuals who have maintained their innocence but have exhausted the criminal appeals process. In January 2016, we became a member of the Innocence Network, which is based in the United States of America. The project was co-founded with my colleague and friend Kristian Humble.

As Director, I lead teams of students in reviewing decided cases to find possible reasons to refer to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). All work has to be done to professional standards and as such, feedback and reflection is central to the students learning during their time with us.

The key difference between the Legal Advice Centre that we also have here at Greenwich and the Innocence Project London is that unlike the LAC where students build the case from the beginning, the IPL works at the end of the criminal justice process. Students deconstruct the criminal cases, analyse the evidence that led to conviction, develop legal theories that could reopen the case and search for factual evidence of innocence. Students from law and criminology work in small groups, alongside practicing lawyers and academics.

In the majority of cases an individual will have already appealed their conviction or sentence. The CCRC is an independent body which reviews possible miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom. They have the ability to decide whether a conviction or sentence should be referred back to the Court of Appeal. The CCRC will only refer a case back to the Court of Appeal if they find a new piece of evidence or a new legal argument that was not put forward at the time of the trial that would create a real possibility of the conviction being unsafe in the context that it would have changed the decision of the jury had they had been aware of it.

The students that work on the IPL do so voluntarily or as part of a credit bearing module (for Criminology). They review all of the evidence and documentation available to them in an attempt to identify that new piece of evidence or a new legal argument that was not put forward at the initial trial or appeal stage. The teams initially put together timelines of the defence and prosecution case to understand how the client was convicted. From there, they identify gaps in the evidence in the form of questions that require answers. They also use the timelines to examine the legal arguments and whether the relevant directions were given to the jury on specific points of law. Students who work on the IPL have travelled to Barcelona to present their work, travelled to Amsterdam to hear exonerees speak, hosted innocence projects from Japan, California and Kansas where they have explained what they do and the cases they have worked on. Students regularly run critical thinking sessions at open days and in schools based on IPL activity. In 2019 one of our cases also featured in the global Wrongful Conviction Day.

Their commitment to the IPL year after year is why I am still here running it. I am grateful to all the support I continually receive throughout the academic year, not least from my colleagues in the Centre for Criminology and School of Law. You may have heard that the UCU is undertaking a period of strike action at the moment and my colleagues have come to support this event and chair panels today during this midst of this action- thank you.

I also need to extend my thanks to the law firm Weil and Gotshal. Their head of pro bono Rob Powell and his team assess the eligibility of all our applicant cases, a job that previously was solely down to me. When we started out receiving 1 applicant every few months this was manageable, now we receive letters almost every day which result in questionnaires being sent out, documents being chased and correspondence with applicants to ensure they are informed at every step of the process. The administration of the IPL is almost a second job in itself and without the help of Rob, Christine and the lawyers working at Weil and now Goldman Sachs I would had drowned in paper a long time ago.

I am fortunate to have lawyers that work alongside the majority of student groups providing an input into their work and giving much needed guidance on the practicality of their innovative thoughts. Tim Barnes QC has been involved from the very early days of the IPL and continues to provide support. Louise Taylor has been with the project for a couple of years as has Samantha Riggs from 25 BR chambers. Stephen Farmer who himself has a demanding job and is undertaking a PhD has volunteered for a couple of years now and has been a great support in the work he has undertaken. I work closely with a number of other organisations and individuals especially JENGbA, and the brilliant Nigel Garbutt who has undertaken forensic pathology work for us on numerous occasions all pro bono.

I also would like to thank the students, past and present. Without them the work on the IPL would not be possible, and it is there drive and passion that keeps me going when I feel beaten- this work is not easy. Every year I am inspired by them and their attitudes to improving the criminal justice system- which incidentally is the theme of this years symposium. I have no doubt you will be as impressed as I am by them.

When you listen to them please remember they are undergraduate law students speaking in front of this room of people. They have practiced hard to articulate their thoughts for you, some will be nervous and some will be excited- if they stumble or trip be kind- its take courage to stand up here.

I want to briefly return to a point I just made about this work not being easy. Back in 2017 there were 17 organisations like the IPL working in higher education institutions around the country, in 2010 when we started there were nearly 40. It takes time and nurturing to keep this work going, especially when you have to let students know that they won’t be getting anyone out of prison in a few months. The system simply doesn’t work like that.

The Cardiff Innocence Project has been the only project to successfully support the quashing of two convictions and their work for each case took years to gather together. The work of the IPL is set against a backdrop of legal aid cuts and a dependency on overworked legal professionals who are often balancing a significantly high caseload.  It is hard to recover evidence from the Police after an appeal has ended and is often dependent on the willingness of each independent police force. This essentially makes for a post code lottery of sorts when trying to obtain CCTV or in one of the cases DNA- even when an accredited forensic scientist is willing to undertake testing pro bono.

So,  for  this year’s symposium, you will hear from the student volunteers today about their work on a variety of cases concerning murder, joint enterprise, rape and sexual assault. The students have carried out this work around their studies, fitting in prison visits, reading case law, and understanding completely new areas of law such as hearsay evidence as well as joint enterprise. You will hear about the complexity of the work but also about how interesting it is and how informed the students are about the criminal justice system.

I am really pleased to welcome Professor Marc Howard from Georgetown University in Washington via skype. If the technology works you will see my shoulders drop instantly.

Also speaking later on is Martin Hewitt, Chair of the National Police Chiefs Council and Kilvinder Vigurs Divisional Director London for the National Probation Service. Both will be sharing their thoughts from the perspective of their organisations about how each is improving the criminal justice system.

It is my delight that we are joined by John Huffington (picture below)from Baltimore, a friend of mine who I first met in 2016 at an Innocence Network conference in San Diego. At that time the prosecutor was trying to put him back into prison. I will let John share his story with you (because he is much better telling it than me) of his 32 years in prison, ten of which were on death row- he is one of the most generous people I know despite such a huge length of time in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Thank you everyone for coming along. I hope you enjoy the afternoon it promises to be interesting and thought provoking. Thank you for supporting the Innocence Project London.

January 2020 

On the 8th of November, a small team of Innocence Project student caseworkers from the Innocence Project London (IPL) at the University of Greenwich attended the 4th annual European Innocence Network Conference hosted in Amsterdam. The conference exposed the students to a global community of advocates who serve on behalf of wrongfully convicted people. Students heard from a variety of speakers including Mr. P.J. Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project; C.J. Knoops-Hamburger, attorney and director of the Knoops’ Innocence Project; and three people who were exonerated: Sunny Jacobs, Peter Pringle, and Ina Post. The students share the impact this conference had on them.

For Devina, an IPL caseworker and second-year student at Greenwich, the stories from those who have been exonerated provided her with new insights. It also resonated with the work she is currently doing since some had been exonerated following the work of various Innocence Projects around the world:

“Attending the 4th annual European Innocence Conference allowed me to meet individuals from a number of countries who tirelessly put their efforts into the exoneration of wrongfully convicted people and it presented an avenue for me to more clearly understand the scale of determination put into innocence projects. The conference was a wonderful experience for me as it was an excellent opportunity to network with professionals and become more knowledgeable about exoneration, particularly in the global sense. I was really inspired by the talks from exonerees, Peter Pringle and Sunny Jacobs who were once on death row. They touched on an aspect I had not previously considered in depth: what life is like after being exonerated. The exonerees conveyed how wrongful imprisonment can destroy an individual’s reputation and called attention to the hardship exonerees face in society after being released. In addition, the work of the California Innocence Project which subsequently led to the exoneration of Uriah Courtney exposed me to the harsh effects of false convictions which led Uriah Courtney to lose years of his life. Attending this conference has helped me to learn that miscarriages of justice do not only affect places such as the United Kingdom and the United States it is a global issue that needs to be addressed by criminal justice systems worldwide.”

Omar, another IPL student caseworker shared his own thoughts into the overall conference as well as the powerful stories from some of the exonerated individuals who spoke:

“The event hosted many speakers who spoke on the topic of wrongful convictions and provided videos as to how human factors, such as eyewitness identification, can lead to a wrongful conviction. In addition, during the event I had the opportunity to listen to the stories of those wrongfully convicted; Sunny Jacobs, Peter Pringle and Ina Bond. The stories provided by these speakers allowed me to see the desperate need for reform in the justice system across multiple countries and showed how an innocent person’s life may be ruined simply by being at the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Two other student caseworkers, Louisa and Bethany, were particularly impacted by the Conference’s discussion about the Chinese Legal System and its recent judicial reforms:

“As a new student caseworker, I found the European Innocence Network Conference (EIN) both inspiring and motivational. It emphasised the need for collaboration across all countries as wrongful convictions all stem from similar issues and the same remedies are used to resolve them through different legal systems.
It was incredibly interesting to learn about the Chinese legal system and the changes that have occurred throughout the past decade which I was previously unaware of such as judges being randomly given cases to prevent bias. It was also eye opening to see the reluctance of Chinese speakers to speak out against the Chinese legal system due to the fear of their government.”
— Louisa

“Attending the European Innocence Network Conference in Amsterdam was an exciting experience which opened my eyes to the wrongful convictions that have occurred worldwide. I was particularly interested in the discussion surrounding the reforms that have taken place in China to try to rectify the issues surrounding wrongful convictions. This is particularly important because China still has capital punishment. This has meant that individuals such as Nie Shubin 聂树斌案 have been put to death for crimes that have later been proven to have been committed by other people. As an individual strongly opposed to capital punishment I was shocked to hear how common this was in China due to the little coverage that is available due to the restrictions imposed by the Chinese government.”

— Bethany

Mina, an IPL intern and caseworker from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said:

“As a first-time attendee, I am grateful to have heard from members of this community about the problems they face as well as the hurdles they have overcome. The work of advocacy on behalf of wrongfully convicted people is a heavy task for any one person thankfully, there is an expanding global movement of advocates who are committed to addressing wrongful convictions in their respective communities. As one speaker said, ‘wrongful convictions exist because of human fragility across borders.’ As such, while the solutions may be clear, they must be applied within their specific cultural context. This is precisely why the Innocence Movement is global.

Also, I was encouraged by the stories of three people who were exonerated. During their conversation, I was struck by a point that is not often discussed—the problems of those who have been wrongfully convicted do not end after they have been exonerated. Their reintegration into society is challenged by the stigma surrounding formerly incarcerated people which does not account for the fact that they were wrongfully convicted. This needs to change as the system has wronged them once before, costing them years of their life in some cases. Society must not perpetuate the faults of the system. At this Conference, I realized we each have a role to play in the global Innocence Movement.”

Nikki, a student caseworker and second-year student at Greenwich, was inspired to continue her work because of the commitment she saw from the individuals she engaged with at the Conference:

“The European Innocence Network Conference was one of the most unique events I’ve attended. Unlike anything else I have ever been involved in, it gave a refreshing perspective on how people view innocence and why they do so. Being given the opportunity to speak to exonerees from around the world was so inspiring and their stories are ones I am unlikely to forget. Overall, the conference allowed me to contextualise the impact of the work we are doing as part of the IPL and further inspired me to continue this kind of work.

It is clear the students who attended this conference gleaned numerous skills and a deeper sense of the task at hand — advocating fearlessly for those who have been wrongfully convicted. This task is not an easy one, but it is one that we are committed to. We at the Innocence Project London are proud to be in good company alongside a global Innocence Movement.

Student caseworkers pictured from left to right: Callum, Bethany, Mina, Louisa, Nikki, Devina, and Omar

June 2019

“It sometimes feels like we have been conditioned to accept the criminal justice system, yet when we work on a case we realise that we should actually scrutinise it as much as possible”

This is what a law student from the Irish National University said at the recent Irish Innocence symposium. Hosted by the Irish Innocence Project at Griffith College Dublin, students from both projects and those from the INU spoke about the cases they have been working on, before breaking into groups to discuss the challenges of that work.

The passion for their work was clear but their honesty as to the challenges they had to overcome, and how the work had developed their perspective of the criminal justice system was refreshing. They all shared an expectation coming into case work that the process would be a lot easier; “we can free someone in a year” is a common prediction, alas and sadly that will not happen. Reading the trial judgments, writing to the client, receiving a response from the client, accessing their legal files- all of these things take time, often months. Access to evidence post -conviction is particularly difficult (a post for another day).

Another commonality was the realisation of the need to disconnect from any pre-conceived ideas about what innocence looks like. The question as to whether having previous convictions makes someone a less likely candidate for innocence is something that most students working in this area will have to think about at some point. The ‘innocent’ client may not have a conveniently available alibi, they may indeed have previous convictions and to top it off, it may not be immediately obvious as to how, as caseworkers they could help. Most students who come to work on the IPL initially start by thinking their client is guilty- why- because they accept what the Judge has said, they aren’t looking to question where the process could have gone wrong. That said, all the students agreed that carrying out innocence work change your perspective and understanding of the criminal justice system, whether the work affirms existing scepticism or not.

It is worth remembering that innocence work, although part of clinical legal education is entirely different from the traditional legal clinic approach. Students aren’t examining the facts and finding the law and advising the client, they are unpicking the case once it has concluded. They are combing through all the evidence and everything that has been said and done in order to identify the possibility of a new legal argument of new piece of evidence. It takes years. It takes motivation. It takes a belief in making the system better.

The students today liked the opportunity to talk to others who know this process and share their frustrations and also share their belief in improving the system. I’m looking forward to next year already….

IPL Director, Louise Hewitt

Student caseworkers pictured left to right Fatimazahra Dehbi, Serpil Tas, Bethany Howell and Javier Medina picture in Dublin in the grounds of Trinity College

March 2019

The Innocence Project London (IPL) along with the student led Miscarriages of Justice Society hosted the 3^rdannual Miscarriages of Justice Symposium this month. We were fortunate to be joined by some brilliant guest speakers, including Former Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders, Assistant Commissioner Nick Ephgrave national lead for criminal justice and the students who have worked on the project spoke about the impact of their work. We were also joined by Dean Gillispie from the Ohio Innocence Project who spent 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Louise Hewitt, Director of the IPL reflects on why the idea of innocence is so difficult in this country.

Watching the students who have worked on the IPL this academic year talking about their efforts, their frustrations and, for some, how they have wrestled with understanding their client to be innocent struck me this year, more than any other. What we read, what we hear and what we see in the mass media has affected our perception of what an innocent person should look like. If they had no previous convictions, if they had a solid alibi who happened to working in a remote part of the world when the case came to court and didn’t realise what was happening, and if the real culprit could be found and identified then it would be much easier for people to identify someone who is innocent. The trouble is, that innocence does not look a certain way and it does not come with a specific set of circumstances. Innocence is a moral value, and that can affect our ability to see people as innocent.

Innocence is not a feature of the English criminal justice system where a conviction is found to be unsafe. This is not a finding of innocence, unless the judge tells you that verbally in court (some have) it is a finding that the conviction does not withstand the scrutiny of being safe.  The problem with understanding how difficult it is to undo a wrongful conviction is evident in the frequently asked ‘how many people have you got out of prison?’. In response, a lengthy and rather depressing explanation leads to a very short and simple answer, ‘none’.

So, what’s the point of all this work and effort then?

In the words of exonerees from the Ohio Innocence Project, the point is that people will not be the criminals they have been labelled to be if they are innocent. One of these exonerees Dean Gillispie (pictured) was in prison for 20 years because of faulty identification in the absence of any DNA which tied him to the crime. Time and time again Dean claimed his innocence because he knew he did not do it. Imagine losing 20 years of your life for a crime you did not commit. Imagine losing the opportunity to have a family, losing the opportunity to develop a career, losing the opportunity to live your life for 20 years. You simply cannot imagine that. I know I can’t.

Back home in England, there are individuals who have been convicted for crimes they did not commit. They are stuck in a criminal justice system that was only ever envisaged to be a one-way street. It was never set up to cater for the possibility that an eye witness could make a mistake or fabricate their evidence for example. The trial process would also expose this surely.  But, over time, legal aid has been eroded, lawyers have a large amount of cases to manage, and mistakes get made throughout the process that are not identified until it’s too late.

That is the point of our work, we believe in the innocence of our clients. The project works hard to do what we can to build cases to take to the Criminal Cases Review Commission but we cannot do it on our own.  The criminal justice system needs to change, it needs to recognise that wrongful convictions can, and do happen.

February 2019

This month’s blog post has been written by one of the groups of volunteer student case workers consisting of two final year and two second year law students. Their current case rests primarily on eye witness testimony and they are not happy.

The Criminal Justice System Surprises Yet Again:  The Perils of Eyewitness Testimony 

One of the things that all Student Caseworkers on the Innocence Project London can agree on is that the criminal justice system is simply not what it seems. But then again, I’m sure many law students can discuss that anything remotely related to law never appears to be what it seems.

The case we are working on concerns joint enterprise, a principle which is widely used and widely criticised.

One thought which may spring to mind when the term criminal justice system is mentioned may be the word ‘justice’, but in practice, and especially in our case justice appears to be simply a mythological concept. The notion that justice does not appear to have been done in our case is based on the fact that the criminal justice system was so easily manipulated by way of eyewitness testimony. There was no DNA evidence placing our client at the scene of the crime, only eyewitness testimony, in which there were a number of inconsistencies. Despite this, the jury were persuaded sufficiently to find our client guilty. Working on the Innocence Project London does make you ask the question how were the jury able to found a guilty verdict? It amazes and confounds us as to how such inconsistent eyewitness testimony can make a difference and have such a significant impact on the whole of the proceedings. How easily these statements alone, can result in an individual in being prosecuted for a crime despite the lack of any other evidence.

We can expect that in joint-enterprise cases there may be inconsistencies where multiple suspects are concerned, especially where evidence pertaining to each suspect is not revealed until later on; or where suspects are not all correctly identified within a proximate time period (for example, our client were not identified until some 18 months after the initial incident). Whilst we may accept that inconsistencies do occur however, we will not accept such inconsistencies as a normal part of the form and function of our criminal justice system. We will not accept that eyewitness testimony alone allows for safe convictions. In fact, if anything, convictions based on eyewitness testimony alone are anything but safe, they are unsafe, and they should have no place in our criminal justice system.