Truth-finding and the Adversarial Tradition: The Experience of the Cardiff Law School Innocence Project

This article draws on the experience of the Cardiff Law School Innocence Project (CLSIP) in reinvestigating cases where there have been allegations of wrongful conviction. It uses that experience to ask questions about truth-finding in a criminal justice system still strongly shaped by the adversari...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Criminal law review 2017-04 (4), p.292
Main Authors: Field, Stewart, Eady, Dennis
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Criminal investigations
Criminal justice
False arrests & convictions
Judicial error
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue 4
container_start_page 292
container_title Criminal law review
container_volume
creator Field, Stewart
Eady, Dennis
description This article draws on the experience of the Cardiff Law School Innocence Project (CLSIP) in reinvestigating cases where there have been allegations of wrongful conviction. It uses that experience to ask questions about truth-finding in a criminal justice system still strongly shaped by the adversarial tradition. Drawing on cases examined by the CLSIP, the article identifies weaknesses in the conduct of police investigations and the limited capacity of the defence to challenge the prosecution case. The attendant vulnerabilities in fact-finding are linked to the way in which the adversarial tradition has been interpreted and operationalised in England and Wales. The article then focuses on the CLSIP's relations with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and specifically CCRC responses to its applications. These suggest that the review functions of the CCRC as officially defined and interpreted do not enable it to address fully the structural vulnerabilities identified.
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1891794589</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4321992997</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p867-48035d11ce3de2c64d3e3a2aeef752275e3cf4c9c7382c4e8a49ce6a8068d82c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjcFKxDAURbNQcBznHwKuC0lf2qTuhjLqQEHBLmY3hORlmlKSmrbq51tGVxfOPdx7QzaMcZ5xKE535H6aesaAgZIbcmnTMneZ88H6cKE6WDp3SPf2C9Okk9cDbZO2fvYxPNF2rQ4_IyaPwSCN7irXOlnvHG30N_0wXYwDPYYQzdV5T7FHMz-QW6eHCXf_uSXt86GtX7Pm7eVY75tsVKXMhGJQWM4NgsXclMICgs41opNFnssCwThhKiNB5Uag0qIyWGrFSmVXAlvy-Dc7pvi54DSf-7iksD6euaq4rEShKvgF7NNSEQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1891794589</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Truth-finding and the Adversarial Tradition: The Experience of the Cardiff Law School Innocence Project</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Field, Stewart ; Eady, Dennis</creator><creatorcontrib>Field, Stewart ; Eady, Dennis</creatorcontrib><description>This article draws on the experience of the Cardiff Law School Innocence Project (CLSIP) in reinvestigating cases where there have been allegations of wrongful conviction. It uses that experience to ask questions about truth-finding in a criminal justice system still strongly shaped by the adversarial tradition. Drawing on cases examined by the CLSIP, the article identifies weaknesses in the conduct of police investigations and the limited capacity of the defence to challenge the prosecution case. The attendant vulnerabilities in fact-finding are linked to the way in which the adversarial tradition has been interpreted and operationalised in England and Wales. The article then focuses on the CLSIP's relations with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and specifically CCRC responses to its applications. These suggest that the review functions of the CCRC as officially defined and interpreted do not enable it to address fully the structural vulnerabilities identified.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0011-135X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Sweet &amp; Maxwell Stevens Journals</publisher><subject>Criminal investigations ; Criminal justice ; False arrests &amp; convictions ; Judicial error</subject><ispartof>Criminal law review, 2017-04 (4), p.292</ispartof><rights>Copyright Sweet &amp; Maxwell Stevens Journals 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>780,30999</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Field, Stewart</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eady, Dennis</creatorcontrib><title>Truth-finding and the Adversarial Tradition: The Experience of the Cardiff Law School Innocence Project</title><title>Criminal law review</title><description>This article draws on the experience of the Cardiff Law School Innocence Project (CLSIP) in reinvestigating cases where there have been allegations of wrongful conviction. It uses that experience to ask questions about truth-finding in a criminal justice system still strongly shaped by the adversarial tradition. Drawing on cases examined by the CLSIP, the article identifies weaknesses in the conduct of police investigations and the limited capacity of the defence to challenge the prosecution case. The attendant vulnerabilities in fact-finding are linked to the way in which the adversarial tradition has been interpreted and operationalised in England and Wales. The article then focuses on the CLSIP's relations with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and specifically CCRC responses to its applications. These suggest that the review functions of the CCRC as officially defined and interpreted do not enable it to address fully the structural vulnerabilities identified.</description><subject>Criminal investigations</subject><subject>Criminal justice</subject><subject>False arrests &amp; convictions</subject><subject>Judicial error</subject><issn>0011-135X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNotjcFKxDAURbNQcBznHwKuC0lf2qTuhjLqQEHBLmY3hORlmlKSmrbq51tGVxfOPdx7QzaMcZ5xKE535H6aesaAgZIbcmnTMneZ88H6cKE6WDp3SPf2C9Okk9cDbZO2fvYxPNF2rQ4_IyaPwSCN7irXOlnvHG30N_0wXYwDPYYQzdV5T7FHMz-QW6eHCXf_uSXt86GtX7Pm7eVY75tsVKXMhGJQWM4NgsXclMICgs41opNFnssCwThhKiNB5Uag0qIyWGrFSmVXAlvy-Dc7pvi54DSf-7iksD6euaq4rEShKvgF7NNSEQ</recordid><startdate>20170401</startdate><enddate>20170401</enddate><creator>Field, Stewart</creator><creator>Eady, Dennis</creator><general>Sweet &amp; Maxwell Stevens Journals</general><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>K7.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170401</creationdate><title>Truth-finding and the Adversarial Tradition: The Experience of the Cardiff Law School Innocence Project</title><author>Field, Stewart ; Eady, Dennis</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p867-48035d11ce3de2c64d3e3a2aeef752275e3cf4c9c7382c4e8a49ce6a8068d82c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Criminal investigations</topic><topic>Criminal justice</topic><topic>False arrests &amp; convictions</topic><topic>Judicial error</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Field, Stewart</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eady, Dennis</creatorcontrib><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Criminal law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Field, Stewart</au><au>Eady, Dennis</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Truth-finding and the Adversarial Tradition: The Experience of the Cardiff Law School Innocence Project</atitle><jtitle>Criminal law review</jtitle><date>2017-04-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><issue>4</issue><spage>292</spage><pages>292-</pages><issn>0011-135X</issn><abstract>This article draws on the experience of the Cardiff Law School Innocence Project (CLSIP) in reinvestigating cases where there have been allegations of wrongful conviction. It uses that experience to ask questions about truth-finding in a criminal justice system still strongly shaped by the adversarial tradition. Drawing on cases examined by the CLSIP, the article identifies weaknesses in the conduct of police investigations and the limited capacity of the defence to challenge the prosecution case. The attendant vulnerabilities in fact-finding are linked to the way in which the adversarial tradition has been interpreted and operationalised in England and Wales. The article then focuses on the CLSIP's relations with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and specifically CCRC responses to its applications. These suggest that the review functions of the CCRC as officially defined and interpreted do not enable it to address fully the structural vulnerabilities identified.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Sweet &amp; Maxwell Stevens Journals</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0011-135X
ispartof Criminal law review, 2017-04 (4), p.292
issn 0011-135X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1891794589
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
subjects Criminal investigations
Criminal justice
False arrests & convictions
Judicial error
title Truth-finding and the Adversarial Tradition: The Experience of the Cardiff Law School Innocence Project
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T21%3A57%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Truth-finding%20and%20the%20Adversarial%20Tradition:%20The%20Experience%20of%20the%20Cardiff%20Law%20School%20Innocence%20Project&rft.jtitle=Criminal%20law%20review&rft.au=Field,%20Stewart&rft.date=2017-04-01&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=292&rft.pages=292-&rft.issn=0011-135X&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E4321992997%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p867-48035d11ce3de2c64d3e3a2aeef752275e3cf4c9c7382c4e8a49ce6a8068d82c3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1891794589&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true