Why Does It Need A New Law To Overturn Wrongful Convictions

[Canary42]

Of course it doesn't, it's just a cynical ploy by Sunak to cash in on public outrage as a vote-catcher.  Gully knows, he needs something.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67926661

[Peter Pedant]

Myself and a friend ( colleagues) are involved in a life time look back review of a third party ( and their cases)

znd his view is: "I cant testify - it is  just too painful to recall." - ( just like outta Airplane) obvious PTSD.

I er DON'T feel like that

[Deskdiary]

Come on Canary, return to this thread. I'm waiting with bated breath for you to defend your position.

[ToraToraTora]

I think Tweety Pie tawt he taw a puddy cat!

[Barmaid]

I do not know what the answer is.  However, I do have grave reservations about parliament interfering with the courts like this, but under the circumstances I cannot think of another way.

These innocent victims must be compensated for the dreadful ordeal that the PO put them through - although no amount of money would be enough for their ordeals.  And it is right to say that they are getting no younger and this has gone on long enough.

Unfortunately, successive governments have closed so many courts and not invested in the infrastructure that the court system is in utter disarray.  The time it would take to bring these cases back before the Court is simply unacceptable.

So whilst I do not agree with parliament getting involved in the judicial process, if that is the only way for real justice to be done, so be it.

[New Judge]

Indeed, bm. 

I think we should look at it like this: the courts quite rightly must normally be independent of government and, in many respects, must perform the job of protecting citizens from an over-zealous executive. However, there are also rare occasions when citizens need protecting from the courts and this is one such occasion.

There has clearly been mass miscarriages of justice (I have been following the tale for many years in Private Eye). Many, if not all, of the convictions must have been based on false evidence (e.g. "Post Office Officials had no remote access to Postmasters' Horizon accounts." ). It was also not helped by the apparent blanket assumption (which first raised its head about twenty years or more ago) that computer systems were infallible unless the contrary was proved. At least two postmasters were convicted of false accounting solely on that basis. There was no evidence that they had done anything wrong other than their stock did not tally with Horizon's view of what it should be. The jury were directed that Horizon must be deemed infallible and following that they had little option but to convict.

The police should investigate this matter thoroughly and quickly for the possibility that offences of  perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice have been committed. However, I have no confidence that will follow at all, let alone thoroughly and quickly.