ABSTRACT
Any fair and effective criminal justice system must ensure that evidence of guilt will be decisively more convincing than the defendant’s claim to innocence. This burden on the prosecution, to satisfy the judge or jury of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, promotes an acceptance in law (if not in the popular press) that ‘It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer’ (Blackstone, 1769: Vol. ivp.27). Despite such fundamental
Introduction 391 Faulty Criminal Process in England and Wales 392
Miscarriages of Justice 392 Forensic Identification and Criminal Investigations 394
Fingerprints and the Case of Shirley McKie 394 ‘Old’ v. ‘New’ Forensic Technology: The Case of Stefan Kiszko 395 ‘Ear Prints’ and the Case of Mark Dallagher 396 DNA ‘Gold Standard’? 396
Features of Flawed Forensic Science Cases 397 Contamination and Errors 397 Quality and Competency 398 Translation into Proof 399 Funding for Forensic Work 399 Biases 399 Developments/Improvements in Science 400
Mechanisms to Redress Residual Error 400 Performance of the CCRC 403 Performance of the Court of Appeal 404
Conclusions 404 References 405
tenets, and despite even the sophistication of contemporary forensic science, the criminal process does still convict the innocent.
