Common law research.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Indicate which research exercise you undertook.
I did the research exercise about wrongful convictions and this being the concern not just of the justice system in England and Wales but of the whole world.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
A Provide a list with full bibliographical details of all the items you identified as being of potential relevance to the essay.
Error of Judgment: The Truth about the Birmingham Bombings by Chris Mullin (London)
Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions go wrong. Brand L Garrett
WESTERN Law Reports.
Miscarriages of Justice by Bob Woffinden
New York Times 26 Sept 2009. Prosecutors push for plea bargains.
The Innocence Project – website.
The Exonerated. Play script/
Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure 1972 (Phillips Report)
Stolen Years. Paul Hill.
R v McIkenney 1991 93 Cr App R 53-54).
Criminal Appeals Act 1995
Queen Bench Division Reports.
Royal Commission on Criminal Justice 1993.
McIlkenny -v- Chief Constable of the West Midlands [1980] QB 283).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
B. For each item, outline the steps you took to uncover relevant information and the keywords you used to find the information. Note any difficulties you faced in finding the information and the steps you took to overcome those difficulties.
I read the relevant pages of those books. I searched in Western Law Reports. I put in murder and appeals cases. I was particularly interested in the Birmingham Bombing case. I put in Birmingham and 1975. The crime occurred in 1974 but the trial took place in 1975.
I was given too many cases. Sometimes attempted murder came up instead. In some of the appeals cases the appeal was dismissed.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C. Reflect on how useful you found each item listed in 1 above according to each of these four criteria: relevance, reliability, authority and objectivity.
Error of Judgment: The Truth about the Birmingham Bombings by Chris Mullin
This book looks at the Birmingham murders and how the police came to reasonable suspect the Birmingham Six. As the evidence against these men was merely circumstantial the police manufactured more evidence to fit the theory that these six did it. It does not have great authority because it is the work of a journalist. Mullin was on the side of the appelants so it lacks objectivity.
Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions go wrong. Brand L Garrett.
This outline the general principles. It identifies how innocent people are wrongfully convicted. It noted that political pressure to convict someone – even an innocent person – of a notorious crime sometimes induces the police to break the procedural rules. This is relevant but only in general terms. It is objective although Garrett seems a little emotional about the subject. It is not quite a work of authority but is very detailed and well researched.
WESTERN Law Reports.
This is useful in that it is highly relevant to the case. It is obviously authoritative and objective. It is highly reliable.
Miscarriages of Justice by Bob Woffinden. This is not very relevant. It is fairly authoritative and objective. It is reliable.
New York Times 26 Sept 2009. Prosecutors push for plea bargains. This was reasonably useful. It was relevant in broad terms but did not deal with specific cases. It is objective and reliable but not especially authoritative.
The Innocence Project – website. This is reliable. It is perhaps not objective as the people behind it have an agenda.
The Exonerated. This is based on real cases and the information is all accurate. This is fairly reliable. It is not objective as it is totally on the side of the appelants. This is not authoritative. It is only relevant in the round.
Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure 1972 (Phillips Report). This is authoritative and objective. It looks at the problems with the criminal justice system. It is fairly relevant – it was published before the cases that I examined were brought to court.
Stolen Years. Paul Hill. This is relevant but not objective. It is fairly reliable but is is not authoritative.
R v McIlkenny 1991 93 Cr App R 53-54). This is is highly relevant and very authoritative. It is objective and reliable. This was very useful.
Criminal Appeals Act 1995. This is relevant, authoritative, objective and reliable.
Queen Bench Division Reports. These are relevant, authoritative, objective and reliable.
Royal Commission on Criminal Justice 1993. These are objective, reliable, authoritative but only tangientialy relevant.
McIlkenny -v- Chief Constable of the West Midlands [1980] QB 283). This is very relevant, reliable, objective and authoritative.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D.
If you were to undertake a similar exercise in future what would you do differently?
I would widen the net in terms of the cases I looked at. I would use other legal research websites. I would look more at Justis, Westlaw, Heinonline, JSTOR and Cambridge Law Journal. I would refine my search by seeing what search terms are most fruitful.
______________________________________________________________________________
Calers's Blog 