Challenging the Refusal to Investigate Evidence Neglected by Trial Lawyers

Abstract

People claiming to have been convicted of crimes they did not commit give one explanation more than any other for their wrongful conviction: their lawyers did not prepare or conduct their defence adequately. Those who apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to have their cases referred for an appeal against conviction cite poor defence work as a reason for their claimed wrongful convictions more frequently than any other reason (CCRC, 2008h). Almost all of those who seek help from the non-governmental organizations which help those believed to be innocent victims of miscarriages of justice say that the defence provided by their lawyers was inadequate. These allegations against lawyers should perhaps be treated with caution: those who believe themselves to have been wrongly convicted are looking for someone to blame for their perceived predicament; and when people are found to have actually been wrongly convicted then those directly responsible are likely to be the police, prosecutors, incompetent experts, mistaken or malicious witnesses or the operation of a system which is defective or not designed to secure the acquittal of the innocent. Poor defence work in such cases merely failed to prevent the wrongful conviction. But, its consequence is that the wrongful conviction is much harder, if not impossible, to rectify through the appeals process.