Justice scales with feather on one side

Under what circumstances should a person feel forced to confess to a crime he did not commit? Under what circumstances should a person be condemned on the basis of flawed forensic evidence?

Peter Sullivan spent 38 years in prison under these circumstances. In his case, the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" seemed stretched to the point where guilt was effectively assumed long before the truth was properly considered.

While it is the role of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the standard is not infallible. Convictions can and do occur largely based on circumstantial evidence, where facts are inferred rather than direct proof. A jury is asked to determine and piece together a chain of events, often relying assumptions or even patterns of behaviour. But when a misplaced fingerprint or a chance encounter can convict, when does inference become certainty and reasonable doubt vanish?

When circumstantial evidence is overvalued, the consequences lead to situations just like Sullivan’s. This has manifested in cases such as Andrew Malkinson, Victor Nealon and many more. Appeal courts often focus narrowly on legal errors rather than other signs of a potentially unsafe conviction. Where there is no “fresh” evidence to suggest otherwise, appealing might feel almost insurmountable. When a conviction is questionable, it can take years or decades before the wrong is made right. In some cases, this may never occur due to such a narrow appeal system. Each wrongful conviction is a stark reminder that the system, no matter how well-intentioned, can fail spectacularly.

The consequences of these failures extend far beyond individual cases. They strike at the very heart of access to justice. A legal system is only as legitimate as its ability to fairly and accurately determine guilt, yet stories like those above expose the fragility of that promise.

At its core, access to justice is not simply about the ability to enter a courtroom but about the ability to be heard, to be fairly assessed, and to have meaningful opportunities to challenge potentially unfair decisions. A right to representation in criminal cases is a basic human right entrusted in Article 6 of the ECHR. However, for those wrongfully convicted, these principles are often hollow.

Upon a guilty verdict, individuals face an uphill battle against procedural barriers, limited legal aid, and an appeals system that prioritises finality over truth. The requirement for “fresh” evidence creates a paradox for those who have already had their cases scrutinised and may now struggle most to prove their innocence, particularly where the original investigation was substantially flawed.

As I write this, I reflect on my recent casework in the Criminal Justice Clinic. Working on a case involving a potential miscarriage of justice has exposed just how difficult it is to challenge a conviction once it has been secured. The combination of strict evidential requirements and systemic barriers means that, for many, access to justice exists more in principle than in practice. It has reinforced the urgent need for reform to ensure that the justice system prioritises the safety of convictions while safeguarding access to justice, to prevent any more egregious cases like that of Peter Sullivan.

Back to news list