Watchdog fails wrongly convicted owing to lack of forensic expertise, experts say | Criminal Cases Review Commission
The low justice guard fails the prisoners who object to the wrong convictions because they do not have judicial expertise and will not interact with the third parties who do so.
Advisors of justice, the criminal cases of justice, say that the Commission of the Criminal Cases (CCRC) is based on law experts without understanding the science that supports many prisoners and appeals.
Dr. Ann Ann Priston, former president of the Forensic Science Association (now the Sworn -in Forensic Sciences Association), said: “It is very easy to assume that science is correctly applied and interpreted correctly.
“Although they are the only organ with the power to demand documents and exhibitions for more tests, they often refuse to do so by arguing that it would be pure speculation.
“Very often, since these steps may have been taken by the defense at the hearing or by the defense, objectively, this evidence is seen at the hearing, although these evidence is an ugly misunderstanding, they are behind the suggestion that it is no longer appropriate to ensure access.”
CCRC has criticized him to deal with Andrew Malkinson, who had been imprisoned for a rape he could not commit; And Peter Sullivan, whose murder conviction was overthrown in May after 38 years.
In June, a parliamentary investigation criticized the “peace of mind ında about the scientific understanding within the CCRC and proposed to hire permanent personnel with scientific past.
Priston would be impossible for CCRC to cover all different fields of science, but it was very important for him to receive advice from people who knew better than them ”.
Tracy Alexander, former president of the British Academy of Forensic Sciences, said that external experts could help CCRC, but justice’s assistance offers have been rejected.
He said: “We said to them on numerous occasions: ‘We have experts in almost every field, we are free, why don’t you let us look at it? We will recommend it to you.’ And they say: ‘No, because you are on the party of the guilty party and you will be prejudiced.’ The whole purpose of the judicial research is that you should not be prejudiced in one way or another and find an answer later.
Considering how easily CCRC was transferred, DNA said that he could not understand that he was not a barma guilt barosa ve and that he hired retired police officers who knew Bugger about judicial opportunities ”.
Alexander claimed that the keeper is not “suitable for the purpose ,, and the police forces will not directly release evidence materials to prisoners and lawyers.
“Put some responsibility for the police forces to hang out with their exhibitions and then deliver them,” he said. “If someone can get a good lawyer and an expert team to support more tests, why do we spend money on CCRC?”
A CCRC spokesman said: uz We regularly deal with external scientific experts during our case investigations. In addition, we use our special legal powers to obtain judicial evidence by the police.
“Recently, we supported our current expertise by assigning a full -time judicial and expert evidence consultant to help review the judicial names of cases, to develop judicial strategies and to interact with the most appropriate experts in order to work on individual cases.”
They said that the case staff received current education on judicial science.
