Thomas Walford and Gerald Frost have had an article published in the Law360 publication arranged by Portfolio Media Inc.
In this article they look at the common themes between three recent cases where there is a potential serious miscarriage of Justice. In the case of Andrew Malkinson, he was accused of rape and spent some 17 years in prison although the Greater Manchester Police, who shortly after he started his prison term, had DNA evidence that he was not the guilty party.
In the second case of the Sub-postmasters the prosecuting authority, the Post Office itself, sought to deny the trials evidence that the Horizon system was flawed.
In the final case, which is still to come back before the court of appeal, various traders in the city were accused of manipulating LIBOR and have been imprisoned. Again evidence which is likely to change the whole understanding of the position was supressed and not made available at the defendants’ trials.
All these cases have a common theme that full evidence was not made available by the authorities or employers of the defendants. Yet to date no persons have been held accountable for these failings which sadly have destroyed lives of the defendants.
For the full articles please see: Accountability Is Key To Preventing Miscarriages Of Justice
Thomas Walford is chairman and CEO of Expert Evidence International Limited. Expert Evidence International has been retained in providing input in the case of R v Tom Hayes.
Gerald Frost is an author and former director of the Danube Institute.
Expert Evidence prides itself on assisting throughout the legal process where required and is a professional firm concentrating on the four main areas of dispute resolution; acting as expert witnesses in financial litigation, mediation, arbitration and adjudication. The firm has a civil, criminal and international practice and has advised in many recent cases. Areas of specialisation include banking, lending, regulation, investment, and tax.
Disclaimer: The above case summary is derived from publicly available information and is not intended to be anything more than a statement of the author’s views on the salient factors of the case. It is not intended and should not be understood to be legal advice of any sort. All views are solely those of the author and no use of the summary should be made without statements being checked against the source of information. Expert Evidence Limited takes no responsibility for the views expressed. The copyright of the summary is owned by Expert Evidence Limited but may be used with written permission which may be forthcoming on application through the contact us page. This news item is not intended to imply or suggest that Expert Evidence Limited was involved in the case, only that it is considered an interesting legal development.
