The revelation of miscarriages of justice can lead a criminal justice system to a crisis point, which can be capitalized upon to engineer legal reforms. In England and Wales, these reforms have included the establishment of three bodies: the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and the Forensic Regulator. With differing remits, these institutions are all intended to address miscarriages of justice. After outlining the genesis of these bodies, we question whether these three institutions are achieving their specific goals. This Article then outlines the benefits accrued from the establishment of these bodies and the controversies that surround their operation. At present, both individually and collectively, these institutions represent a partial solution to miscarriages of justice. However, this Article argues that calls for a greater focus upon “actual” innocence made in light of this partial success are misguided. Such a refocusing may have the unintended consequence of fostering a climate where miscarriages of justice flourish. The rights of all suspects need protection, and due process concerns have the concomitant benefit of protecting the innocent from wrongful conviction. A blinkered approach to “miscarriages” will not necessarily assist the wrongfully convicted and may even increase their number.
|Journal||University of Cincinnati Law Review|
|Publication status||Published - 2012|