Today is Falsely Accused Day. Not sure if it’s a “World” or “International” day or not but it is certainly a focus for people who have been wrongly accused.

The issue of being innocent in prison is interesting and worthy of discussion because many prisoners claim to be innocent. Even The Simpsons commented on it in an episode where Marge got sent to prison. In a previous blog, I commented on my view that most prisoners do not have accurate convictions, many are under-convicted or over-convicted but a few, I believe, are entirely innocent of any criminality.

I am not in a position to judge if any particular prisoner I know is truly innocent of all crimes but what is easier to judge is if others have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. There is a fundamental difference between the two but prior to being imprisoned I hadn’t really given it much consideration. The question of innocence doesn’t really play a role in a criminal trial, it’s the adversarial elements which are important. The jury is allowed (in fact directed by the judge) to accept inaccuracies in a witnesses testimony so if they believe an emotionally charged allegation, they can forget the 95% which is inaccurate and still find a defendant guilty. Indeed, I’m pretty certain it happens the other way around, too, and there must be many people who are found not guilty when they are, in fact, guilty.

These sorts of imperfections may be of little consequence in other areas of life but in criminal trials they care extremely serious as I’m sure you can imagine.

Occasionally, there are events that focus minds on miscarriages of justice. Some time ago, there was the case of a UK student imprisoned in Iran (I think) for sending tweets against the regime and, of course, in the 90s (?), there was the Birmingham six and the Guildford four. Most recently, there has been the case of Andrew Malkinson who served 17 years for a crime he did not commit.

I think the actual failure in the process of law in the trial is only half of the issue, the other half being what happens afterwards. What are the safeguards in place? How can we challenge and correct mistakes and failures? Who can help us in our time of need? The answers to those questions are very worrying.

Let me encourage you to imagine how you would feel if you were prosecuted for stealing a chocolate bar from a supermarket? The truth is that if two shop assistants said they believe they saw you putting it in your pocket then that is enough to get you a criminal conviction for theft. They wouldn’t need CCTV or DNA or even to find the chocolate bar or wrapper. Remember too that the police try to find evidence to support the prosecution, not to try to uncover the truth. They work as agents of the crown and it’s the crown whose interest it is to prosecute rather than establish the truth. The whole weight of the crown including the police and other agencies like HMRC/DVLA/local councils or whatever is trying to find you guilty and you would be really up against it. Now imagine if the allegation that 10 years ago, you conned a neighbour out of a load of money – how could you defend yourself? Now imagine if two of your ex-boyfriends from 20 years ago accused you of assaulting them; they would need no more than their testimony to convict you and how could you possibly defend yourself?

It’s a very worrying subject which is why most people try to ignore it, turn a blind eye and bury their heads in the sand. Please let me encourage you to be inquisitive. Email your MSP and ask about what they are doing about injustice. Read the inspection report of your local prison. Go to your local court and see for yourself and if you are ever accused of anything criminal, be ready for a very unfair process.

NaN.