Reversing Wrongful Convictions

In ordinary circumstances, when an innocent person is convicted of crimes they did not commit, they are totally devastated; and have no idea what to do or where to turn. Any possibility of resolving the matter will usually rest with a family member. The normal procedure would be to have the trial Barrister or Solicitor(s) file an appeal brief on behalf of the person who has been convicted.

One problem with the appeal process is that most people have no understanding as to what it is or what it accomplishes. An appeal is basically a study of the trial transcript by the higher Court (see Appeals Process) to determine if the lower court committed reversible errors and, if it has, are those errors significant and properly identified by the defence Barrister.

The higher Court can reverse the conviction, but usually in favor of a new trial. Right back to square one. Never loose sight of the fact that if the trial Barrister did not object to crucial issues, the lower Court would have had nothing to rule on and, therefore, the higher Court would have nothing to reverse on.

During the appeal process, the convicted party often sits in prison, for as long as a year, before an appeal Barrister has prepared an appeal, filed it with the Court; and then possibly another two years waiting for a decision from the higher Court. In most cases the higher Court will simply uphold the conviction. If the appeal is denied, then there are other avenues of post-conviction relief available, each with a price tag and each taking time.

The fact is attempting to reverse a wrongful conviction should be handled by an experienced QC and/or Barrister but this is not always possible. What about the Accused who was convicted simply because their Barrister or Solicitor was totally ineffective in representing them. If the specific reason for the conviction was ineffective assistance of Counsel, it is often difficult to get another Barrister or Solicitor to even discuss the issue, even a Barrister or Solicitor who was retained to prepare an appeal.

We are all entitled to proper, adequate and effective legal representation as provided by the Law of the United Kingdom and, as a result, ineffective assistance of Counsel is a direct violation of our Human Rights Act.

When using an argument of ineffective assistance of Counsel, the Defendant must show, without question, that there is a reasonable probability that, but for Counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding could have been different.

As previously stated and, without question, the issue of post conviction relief should be left in the hands of a qualified and skilled Barrister and instructing Solicitor. If, however, that simply is not possible, consider the alternative. It has been said that an inmate with no Barrister or Solicitor stands no chance of having their conviction reversed, either through appeal or by post conviction relief.

Not so. Any prisoner can represent themselves, Pro Se (without a Barrister or Solicitor) in their post conviction effort and can have someone assist them with legal research and document preparation, specifically, writs. Most commonly, writs are used either in conjunction with an appeal, or following an unsuccessful appeal, as a vehicle to present to the Court of Appeal any arguments based on information outside the record on appeal.

A post-conviction writ can be used to establish issues that affected the Defendant's rights to be properly and fairly tried, such as:

Denial of the right to Counsel.

•  The conduct of the trial Counsel and its impact on a fair and proper trial are related to ineffective assistance. The issues most commonly addressed in a writ are:

•  failure to conduct a proper investigation.
•  failure to present known witnesses.
•  failure to make proper objections and requests at trial.
•  failure to disclose a conflict of interest.
•  Lack of lower Court jurisdiction to try the Defendant even if such defence was not asserted in the trial Court.
•  Suppression of material evidence by the Prosecution resulting in the denial of a fair trial.
•  Presentation of newly discovered evidence.
•  Proof of a conviction that is based on false evidence.
•  Proof of an invalid or excessive sentence or invalid probation condition.

It has been our experience that most people are afraid to even consider representing themselves Pro Se, simply because they do not feel that they are educated or smart enough and do not want anyone to think they are attempting to practice law. However, in some cases, representing one's self is the only manner in which they may find relief. A Pro Se appellant/petitioner has no reason to fear what is not politically correct and, therefore, is in a good position to bring out all the facts that resulted in their conviction.

Anyone, considering representing himself or herself Pro Se, should at least have a basic knowledge of how to conduct legal research.

Understand that there are many individuals who have represented themselves Pro Se, filed petitions that did nothing more than waste the Court's time. If you are asking a Court to reverse a decision your facts must be accurate, positive and you must be able, without question, to prove, support and backup every issue and every argument.

Some of the cases which we have been involved in have been for clients who were innocent; were convicted primarily because of ineffective assistance of counsel; prosecutorial misconduct; impartial jury to name but a few.

Our success is mainly due to the fact that we excel in breaking down and analysing every aspect of the case. Especially the involvement of the defence Barrister, Solicitor, Prosecutor, Judge, witnesses, expert evidence, documents, pre-trial discovery and pre-trial investigation.

In order to reverse a conviction, you must offer absolute proof as to why the conviction should be reversed, be it ineffective assistance of Counsel, Prosecutorial misconduct, or the fact that manifestibly new evidence has been obtained.