BIRMINGHAM SIX FORENSIC EVIDENCE

Birmingham Six Forensic Evidence

Birmingham Six Forensic Evidence

Introduction

It considers the role played by scientific evidence in the notorious miscarriages of justice of the last few decades and in particular the appeals of the Birmingham Six. It is an attempt to describe the roles attributed to scientific evidence in so-called high profile miscarriage of justice cases applying the same kind of analytical tools to account for the decision to acquit as those used to account for the processes of prosecution and conviction. 

Discussion

If, as is widely suggested in the legal and criminological literature, it is the case that prosecutions and convictions are socially constructed then why should acquittals and the ascription miscarriage of justice be treated differently?3 If conviction and guilt are constructed by the criminal justice system, then presumably they can be pulled apart (or deconstructed). It is my contention that miscarriages of justice can also be deconstructed to explore how previously reliable convictions are rendered unsafe and, often and simultaneously, politically untenable. As I hope to show, this involves recognizing a constitutive relationship between the social circumstances surrounding high profile appeals, institutional traditions as well as official interpretations of evidence, legal rules and procedures.

Within the conventional model, miscarriages of justice are teleological: 'the innocent become guilty until the misleading expert testimony is disproved'. Miscarriages of justice are typically portrayed as cases which expose serious injustices or flaws in the routine production of guilt by the criminal justice system. Public and political concerns are usually exacerbated by delays and recalcitrance encountered in the processes of revelation and rectification. The accused are inevitably characterized as not-guilty, often factually innocent, and trial judges, Courts of Appeal, police, lawyers and scientists are individually or in combination subject to criticism for their respective involvement in creating and perpetuating what comes to be understood as a serious injustice. Conventional accounts of high profile miscarriages of justice always include negative assessments of the criminal justice system. The miscarriages are rectified, in conventional accounts, when the 'truth (or some version of it) wins out'. Ultimately, the hard won 'truth' becomes overwhelming and those involved in the original conviction and the processes of review are compelled, though sometimes reluctantly, to recognize its (legal) implications. Scientific evidence is an important component of most high profile miscarriage of justice cases.22 In part, this is due to institutional pressures to move beyond errors of law in accounting for legal reversals; especially after an unsuccessful appeal. In Woffinden's account of the scientific evidence in the Birmingham Six case, two investigative reporters: 'exposed the inaccuracy of the forensic evidence'.

Frequently, scientists are criticized for exaggerating their level of confidence, venturing into realms where they possess little experience or proffering partial accounts.30 Sometimes, miscarriages are described as a result of a failure to value or explain evidence properly. Another common concern is the excessive reliance placed on scientific evidence: that its potential fallibility is not recognized. Others identify structural or institutional predilections in favour of constructing robust, scientifically predicated, prosecution cases, in contrast to the meagre resources available to the defence. All conventional approaches, even those acknowledging the construction of criminal justice, distinguish the conditions surrounding the production of the original evidence used to convict and the evidence used to expose the ...