EN :

This study compared the causes of wrongful convictions in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand to a) determine the main causes of wrongful convictions in different countries, b) determine if the cause(s) of wrongful convictions significantly differ between each country, c) determine what, if any, recommendations arose from these cases, and d) if any of these recommendations could be implemented in a Canadian setting. The main causes were witness perjury, forensic error, and procedural error (Canada), witness perjury (US), witness perjury and police misconduct (UK), police misconduct (Australia), and procedural error (New Zealand). Kruskal-Wallis tests indicated significant differences in distribution between these countries for medicolegal death investigations, bitemark analysis, procedural error, police misconduct, inadequate legal defence, eyewitness misidentification, and witness perjury. Objectives c and d were addressed through a content analysis resulting in the following five themes emerging: lack of accountability, education, accessibility, discrimination, and post exoneration.

EN :

In 2016 the English Supreme Court corrected the law concerning joint enterprise liablity in R v Jogee ([2016] UKSC 8). The decision did not invalidate every conviction made under the erroneous, albeit faithful application of the old law, on the basis it could lead to an unmanageable number of appeals. Individuals convicted as secondary parties prior to Jogee who appeal outside of the statutory 28 days have to demonstrate they have suffered a substantial injustice, the test imposed by the Court of Appeal in all change of (common) law cases. The Court of Appeal will also apply this test to a referral made by the English Crimial Cases Review Commission (CCRC). This has meant that the CCRC has no choice for this category of applicant, but to apply its own statutory test and also the substantial injustice test. The CCRC’s statutory real possibility test has been criticised for compromising its independence, on the basis the language makes it subordinate to the Court of Appeal. The fact that the CCRC has to apply the Court of Appeal’s substantial injustice test further questions just how subservient it is to the Court.This article is based on a research study produced by the author, which was the first to examine applications made to the CCRC from individuals who have been convicted under joint enterprise liability. The findings explore the extent to which the corrected law from Jogee is used in applications, and shows the limiting effect that the substantial injustice test has had on the CCRC. The study also reveals the low number of applicants identifying as Black British, despite existing research suggesting this demographic has the highest conviction rate for joint enterprise.

EN :

As the number of wrongful conviction media productions released to the public increases, an understanding of their potential impact on viewers is prudent. One such production, When They See Us, depicts the wrongful conviction of five racialized youth, and we investigated the effect of watching this specific wrongful conviction media production on a subset of Reddit users’ online conversations about wrongful convictions and the criminal justice system in general. Following an inductive content analysis of Reddit comments shared to r/WhenTheySeeUs (N = 461), seven coding categories were observed. The ‘Wrongful Conviction Relevant’ coding category was the third most frequently occurring, representing 28% of total comments. Additionally, after conducting a deeper thematic analysis of the ‘Wrongful Conviction Relevant’ comments, the following themes and subthemes were identified: Risk Factors (Individual Characteristics and System Factors), Exoneration and Beyond (Impacts on Exonerees and Changes to System), and the Innocence Movement (Unmet System Expectations and Public Awareness). Users’ ‘Wrongful Conviction Relevant’ comments were situated within the academic literature investigating wrongful conviction correlates, outcomes, and preventative measures, and discussed in relation to viewer reactions to other wrongful conviction media productions.