Tagged: United Kingdom

TrackMyCrime Keeps Crime Victims in UK Informed

The Telegraph, in London, reports that the UK Ministry  of Justice has launched TrackMyCrime, an online platform intended to allow victims easier access to information about police investigations of their cases. By logging on, victims can track the progress of a police investigation and send secure messages directly to officers working on their cases. In the future, the hope is that victims will be able to follow their cases through the courts as well, and ultimately, if there is a conviction, through an offender’s imprisonment and release.

Victims, the one group of people often overlooked yet the most affected by crime are getting a voice in the UK for now – and in a relatively efficient manner. Maybe other systems should take heed.  At the international level, the International Criminal Court and the various criminal tribunals and hybrid courts allow and support victims’ participation, but even there, the participation is limited to court proceedings.  In the United States, victims’ interests are said to be represented by the prosecutor’s office; however, they often are not a priority, particularly for a busy, urban prosecutors office. It appears that the United Kingdom has found a reasonable middle ground – allowing victims to be part of the investigation, to be informed about the progress of their cases, to have the ability to provide information, and, perhaps most importantly, to feel involved in the process.

Related Reading:

DOJ Policy Bans Waiver of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims as Condition of Guilty Plea

Last week, Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole issued a memorandum to federal prosecutors advising them that they should “no longer seek in plea agreements to have a defendant waive claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, whether those claims are made on collateral attack, or, when permitted by circuit law, made on direct appeal.” As to cases in which such waivers had already been entered, the memorandum advises that federal  prosecutors should “decline to enforce the waiver when defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance resulting in prejudice or when the defendant’s ineffective assistance claim raises a serious debatable issue that a court should resolve.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the validity of such waivers. The Court has clearly held, however, that the right to effective assistance of counsel applies to guilty pleas. Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012); Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012); Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). Following these holdings, every circuit court to address the validity of a waiver of the right to effective assistance of counsel – ten of twelve circuits – has upheld the waiver. United States v. Djelevic, 161 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 1998); United States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 1994); Davila v. United States, 258 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2001); Jones v. United States, 167 F.3d 1142 (7th Cir. 1999); DeRoo v. United States, 223 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2000); Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2001). Interestingly, however, twelve state ethics opinions have held that insisting on such a waiver is unethical.  See, e.g., United States v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 2013-SC-000270-KB (Ky. Aug. 21, 2014), and cases cited in footnote 37 therein. In addition, in a 2013 113E Resolution, the American Bar Association declared its opposition to ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) waivers, and in October 2012 the National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) has issued a formal opinion (12-02) finding it unethical for defense lawyers to participate in such waivers.

The DOJ policy is important because it is a break with the growing momentum of waiver by guilty plea:  it seems that over the years defendants have been asked to waive more and more rights as part of a plea bargain.  Ultimately, although problematic, many defendants are now required to waive the right to appeal or to appeal and collateral attack as part of a guilty plea.   The DOJ directive mark an important exception to these practices.

The DOJ policy memorandum is significant for another reason. In other jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom, internal prosecutorial procedures and policies are publicly available and provide some limitations on what would otherwise be unlimited prosecutorial discretion. This is an excellent way to create at least a presumption that the prosecution is behaving fairly.

Finally, there are those who wonder whether the prosecution (or the courts) can or should do more when confronted by deficient performance of defense counsel. See, e.g., Vanessa Merton, What Do You Do When You Meet a “Walking Violation of the Sixth Amendment” If You’re Trying to Put That Lawyer’s Client in Jail?, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 997 (2000). They are on the front lines, if you will; aside from the ethical obligation to report unethical conduct by other lawyers, prosecutors generally have no duty to protect a defendant from the ineffectiveness of his or her counsel. Thankfully, by virtue of the DOJ memorandum, federal prosecutors have accepted the duty not to participate in hiding these claims from review.

The North Carolina Exonerations: Innocence Commisions

As reported in the New York Times, two men were recently exonerated through proceedings in the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission based on DNA evidence that demonstrated the real criminal was another original suspect who had committed a similar crime. The two men each had served thirty years in prison, one on death row.

North Carolina of course is the only state in the United States with an independent commission established to examine the innocence claims of wrongly convicted individuals. England and Wales and Scotland have long had these commissions – the Criminal Cases Review Commissions. Although they obviously have critics, these commissions have functioned effectively – miraculously from a US perspective – in independently investigating (with subpoena power) and then referring cases to the court of appeal for review.

We should re-think our opposition to establishing independent commissions that can impartially and thoroughly investigate claims of wrongful conviction. Finality is an important value, yes, and we commit a tremendous amount of resources to the pre-conviction resolution of criminal charges. But it’s important to realize that the North Carolina courts and presumably the federal courts, did nothing to correct the manifestly erroneous convictions in this case. Were it not for the Commission, the convictions would stand. Can the correction of these so manifestly erroneous North Carolina convictions rationally be seen as threatening to our finality values?

Aside from the overriding importance of freeing the wrongly convicted, the public’s perception of the justice and reliability of our criminal process is deteriorating. One of the best and probably most cost-effective way to restore it is to establish direct review innocence commissions in our states.

Related Readings:

Related Journal Articles:

Compensation for Exonerees

Providing compensation for wrongfully convicted individuals has been an ongoing dilemma within the United States and for governments abroad. A recent blog, Compensating Exonerees: US v. UK, by Professor Lissa Griffin of Pace Law School discusses the UK’s current struggle to articulate a standard of proof for exonerees who are seeking compensation.

Related Readings:

European Court of Human Rights Invalidates Life Sentence without Parole

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held this week that the UK’s whole life sentence violates Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

UK law provides a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder, but the trial judge is required to set a minimum term of imprisonment, after which the prisoner may apply for release on license, or parole.  However, a judge may impose a “whole life order,” instead of a minimum term, if the murder is exceptionally serious.  Under such an order, the prisoner cannot be released except at the discretion of the UK Secretary of State if the prisoner is terminally ill or seriously incapacitated.  The grand chamber held that for a life sentence to be compatible with article 3, “there must be both a prospect of release and a possibility of review.”  This review should take place no later than twenty-five years after imposition of sentence and there should be periodic reviews thereafter.

The US Supreme Court has yet to go this far, of course.  In Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct 2455 (2012),  the Court held that a life sentence without parole is unconstitutional only if imposed on a juvenile.

Read the full opinion of the ECHR and the press release.