Skip to content

The Law and Policy Blog

Independent commentary on law and policy from a liberal constitutionalist and critical perspective

Donate

You can support this independent law and policy commentary by PayPal

Subscribe

Please enter your email address to receive notifications of new stuff by me here and elsewhere.

Pages

  • About
  • Comments Policy

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Explaining a 31-month sentence for a tweet 27th May 2025
  • A close reading of the “AI” fake cases judgment 9th May 2025
  • How the Trump administration’s “shock and awe” approach has resulted in its litigation being shockingly awful 22nd April 2025
  • How the United States constitutional crisis is intensifying 17th April 2025
  • A note about injunctions in the context of the Abrego Garcia case 14th April 2025
  • How Trump is misusing emergency powers in his tariffs policy 10th April 2025
  • How Trump’s tariffs can be a Force Majeure event for some contracts 7th April 2025
  • The significance of the Wisconsin court election result 2nd April 2025
  • “But what if…?” – constitutional commentary in an age of anxiety 31st March 2025
  • A significant defeat for the Trump government in the federal court of appeal 27th March 2025
  • Reckoning the legal and practical significance of the United States deportations case 25th March 2025
  • Making sense of the Trump-Roberts exchange about impeachment 19th March 2025
  • Understanding what went on in court yesterday in the US deportations case 18th March 2025
  • “Oopsie” – the word that means the United States has now tipped into a constitutional crisis 17th March 2025
  • Oh Canada 16th March 2025
  • Thinking about a revolution 5th March 2025
  • The fog of lawlessness: what we can see – and what we cannot see – in the current confusions in the United States 25th February 2025
  • The president who believes himself a king 23rd February 2025
  • Making sense of what is happening in the United States 18th February 2025
  • The paradox of the Billionaires saying that Court Orders have no value, for without Court Orders there could not be Billionaires 11th February 2025
  • Why Donald Trump is not really “transactional” but anti-transactional 4th February 2025
  • From constitutional drama to constitutional crisis? 1st February 2025
  • Solving the puzzle of why the case of Prince Harry and Lord Watson against News Group Newspapers came to its sudden end 25th January 2025
  • Looking critically at Trump’s flurry of Executive Orders: why we should watch what is done, and not to be distracted by what is said 21st January 2025
  • A third and final post about the ‘Lettuce before Action’ of Elizabeth Truss 18th January 2025
  • Why the Truss “lettuce before action” is worse than you thought – and it has a worrying implication for free speech 17th January 2025
  • Of Indictments and Impeachments, and of Donald Trump – two similar words for two distinct things 16th January 2025
  • Why did the DoJ prosecution of Trump run out of time? 14th January 2025
  • Spiteful governments and simple contract law, a weak threatening letter, and a warning of a regulatory battle ahead 13th January 2025
  • A close look at Truss’s legal threat to Starmer – a glorious but seemingly hopeless cease-and-desist letter 9th January 2025
  • How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year – how the English state gave up on insisting the new year started on 25 March 1st January 2025
  • Some of President Carter’s judges can still judge, 44 years later – and so we can see how long Trump’s new nominees will be on the bench 31st December 2024
  • “Twelfth Night Till Candlemas” – the story of a forty-year book-quest and of its remarkable ending 20th December 2024
  • An argument about Assisting Dying – matters of life and death need to be properly regulated by law, and not by official discretion 28th November 2024
  • The illiberalism yet to come: two things not to do, and one thing to do – suggestions on how to avoid mental and emotional exhaustion 18th November 2024
  • New stories for old – making sense of a political-constitutional rupture 14th November 2024
  • The shapes of things to come – some thoughts and speculations on the possibilities of what can happen next 8th November 2024
  • A postcard from the day after an election: capturing a further political-constitutional moment 6th November 2024
  • A postcard from the day of an election – capturing a political-constitutional moment 5th November 2024
  • “…as a matter of law, the house is haunted” – a quick Hallowe’en post about law and lore 31st October 2024
  • Prisons and prisons-of-the-mind – how the biggest barrier to prisons reform is public opinion 28th October 2024
  • A blow against the “alternative remedies” excuse: the UK Supreme Court makes it far harder for regulators to avoid performing their public law duties 22nd October 2024
  • What explains the timing and manner of the Chagos Islands sovereignty deal? 20th October 2024
  • Happy birthday, Supreme Court: the fifteenth anniversary of the United Kingdom’s highest court 1st October 2024
  • Words on the screen – the rise and (relative) fall of text-based social media: why journalists and lawyers on social media may not feel so special again 30th September 2024
  • Political accountability vs policy accountability: how our system of politics and government is geared to avoid or evade accountability for policy 24th September 2024
  • On writing – and not writing – about miscarriages of justice 23rd September 2024
  • Miscarriages of Justice: the Oliver Campbell case 21st September 2024
  • How Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris and Walz is a masterpiece of persuasive prose: a songwriter’s practical lesson in written advocacy 11th September 2024
  • Supporting Donald Trump is too much for Richard Cheney 7th September 2024
  • A miscarriage of justice is normally a systems failure, and not because of any conspiracy – the cock-up theory usually explains when things go wrong 30th August 2024
  • Update – what is coming up. 29th August 2024
  • Shamima Begum – and ‘de jure’ vs ‘de facto’ statelessness 21st August 2024
  • Lucy Letby and miscarriages of justice: some words of caution on why we should always be alert to the possibilities of miscarriages of justice 19th August 2024
  • This week’s skirmish between the European Commission and X 17th August 2024
  • What Elon Musk perhaps gets wrong about civil wars being ‘inevitable’ – It is in the nature of civil wars that they are not often predictable 7th August 2024
  • How the criminal justice system deals with a riot 5th August 2024
  • The Lucy Letby case: some thoughts and observations: what should happen when a defence does not put in their own expert evidence (for good reason or bad)? 26th July 2024
  • And out the other side? The possible return of serious people doing serious things in law and policy 10th July 2024
  • What if a parliamentary candidate did not exist? The latest odd constitutional law question which nobody has really thought of asking before 9th July 2024
  • The task before James Timpson: the significance of this welcome appointment – and two of the obstacles that he needs to overcome 8th July 2024
  • How the Met police may be erring in its political insider betting investigation – and why we should be wary of extending “misconduct of public office” to parliamentary matters, even in nod-along cases 28th June 2024
  • What you need to know about commercial regulation, in the sports sector and elsewhere – for there is compliance and there is “compliance” 25th June 2024
  • Seven changes for a better constitution? Some interesting proposals from some good people. 24th June 2024
  • The wrong gong 22nd June 2024
  • The public service of an “Enemy of the People” 22nd June 2024
  • Of majorities and “super-majorities” 21st June 2024
  • The strange omission in the Conservative manifesto: why is there no commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act? 12th June 2024
  • The predicted governing party implosion in historical and constitutional context 11th June 2024
  • Donald Trump is convicted – but it is now the judicial system that may need a good defence strategy 1st June 2024
  • The unwelcome weaponisation of police complaints as part of ordinary politics 31st May 2024
  • Thoughts on the calling of a general election – and on whether our constitutional excitements are coming to an end 29th May 2024
  • Another inquiry report, another massive public policy failure revealed 21st May 2024
  • On how regulating the media is hard – if not impossible – and on why reviving the Leveson Inquiry may not be the best basis for seeing what regulations are now needed 4th May 2024
  • Trump’s case – a view from an English legal perspective 24th April 2024
  • Law and lore, and state failure – the quiet collapse of the county court system in England and Wales 22nd April 2024
  • How the civil justice system forced Hugh Grant to settle – and why an alternative to that system is difficult to conceive 17th April 2024
  • Unpacking the remarkable witness statement of Johnny Mercer – a closer look at the extraordinary evidence put before the Afghan war crimes tribunal 25th March 2024
  • The curious incident of the Afghanistan war crimes statutory inquiry being set up 21st March 2024
  • A close look at the Donelan libel settlement: how did a minister make her department feel exposed to expensive legal liability? 8th March 2024
  • A close look at the law and policy of holding a Northern Ireland border poll – and how the law may shape what will be an essentially political decision 10th February 2024
  • How the government is seeking to change the law on Rwanda so as to disregard the facts 30th January 2024
  • How the next general election in the United Kingdom is now less than a year away 29th January 2024
  • Could the Post Office sue its own former directors and advisers regarding the Horizon scandal? 16th January 2024
  • How the legal system made it so easy for the Post Office to destroy the lives of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses – and how the legal system then made it so hard for them to obtain justice 12th January 2024
  • The coming year: how the parameters of the constitution will shape the politics of 2024 1st January 2024
  • The coming constitutional excitements in the United States 31st December 2023
  • What is often left unsaid in complaints about pesky human rights law and pesky human rights lawyers 15th December 2023
  • A role-reversal? – a footnote to yesterday’s post 1st December 2023
  • The three elements of the Rwanda judgment that show how the United Kingdom government is now boxed in 30th November 2023
  • On yesterday’s Supreme Court judgment on the Rwanda policy 16th November 2023
  • The courts have already deflated the Rwanda policy, regardless of the Supreme Court judgment next Wednesday 10th November 2023
  • The extraordinary newspaper column of the Home Secretary – and its implications 9th November 2023
  • Drafts of history – how the Covid Inquiry, like the Leveson Inquiry, is securing evidence for historians that would otherwise be lost 1st November 2023
  • Proportionality is an incomplete legal concept 25th October 2023
  • Commissioner Breton writes a letter: a post in praise of the one-page formal document 11th October 2023
  • “Computer says guilty” – an introduction to the evidential presumption that computers are operating correctly 30th September 2023
  • COMING UP 23rd September 2023
  • Whatever happened to ‘the best-governed city in the world’? – some footnotes to the article at Prospect on the Birmingham city insolvency 9th September 2023
  • One year on from one thing, sixteen months on from another thing… 8th September 2023
  • What is a section 114 Notice? 7th September 2023
  • Constitutionalism vs constitutionalism – how liberal constitutionalists sometimes misunderstand illiberal constitutionalism 24th August 2023
  • Performative justice and coercion: thinking about coercing convicted defendants to hear their sentences 21st August 2023
  • Of impeachments and indictments – how many of the criminal indictments against Trump are a function of the failure of the impeachment process 15th August 2023
  • A note of caution for those clapping and cheering at the latest indictment of Donald Trump 8th August 2023

Archives

Masterdon link

Mastodon

A miscarriage of justice is normally a systems failure, and not because of any conspiracy – the cock-up theory usually explains when things go wrong

30th August 2024
One accusation that is often made of anyone with an interest in possible miscarriages of justice is that they are “conspiracy theorists”.

In reality, however, you do not have to posit a conspiracy to explain when things go wrong with the legal system.

In particular, what happens in the justice system is that the safeguards and checks which exist to prevent or minimise miscarriages of justice sometimes do not work properly.

Just as a conspiracy can perhaps explain a car accident, the explanation is more likely to be brakes failure, or driver error, or so on. One or two things go wrong, and then the whole thing crashes.

As some Medieval chap put it, explanatory factors should not be multiplied beyond necessary.

*

Indeed, a number of not directly connected people acting in concert to achieve a common goal is what is required for the justice system to work consistently properly.

And we all know unlikely that is.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Posted on 30th August 2024Author David Allen GreenCategories Courts and the administration of justice

28 thoughts on “A miscarriage of justice is normally a systems failure, and not because of any conspiracy – the cock-up theory usually explains when things go wrong”

  1. Matt Flaherty says:
    30th August 2024 at 08:42

    A conspiracy of errors?

    Reply
    1. David Allen Green says:
      30th August 2024 at 08:55

      Perhaps.

      Take Twitterjoketrial – which for anyone else reading this comment is a case Matt and I worked on together, back in the day.

      The Airport and the local police both rated the ‘threat’ as non-credible, but because if was ‘terrorism’ the local CPS were to make a decision. And instead of the CPS taking no further action, they strained the law to come up a way of prosecuting the case, when it was obvious a bomb hoax charge would not work. And from that one error the rest of the case flowed. The magistrates court then made a further error in getting the law wrong. And it took to the High Court for the systems failures to be corrected.

      Reply
      1. Matt Flaherty says:
        30th August 2024 at 09:01

        I think conspiracy of errors fits TJT very well, because the longer it went on, the decision makers seemed to take it more seriously than any reasonable person ought to have done. They were unduly influenced by the previous failings until the Lord Chief Justice put a stop to it.

        Reply
      2. Matt Massarella-Gill says:
        5th September 2024 at 07:33

        You may well have studied Justice Peter Mahon’s Commission of Inquiry into the 1979 crash of Air New Zealand Flight 901 into Mount Erebus and the subsequent legal proceedings, which reached the Privy Council. Mahon claimed that Air New Zealand executives had engaged in a conspiracy to whitewash the inquiry, covering up evidence and lying to investigators. He concluded in his infamous line that they had told “an orchestrated litany of lies.”

        Reply
        1. David Allen Green says:
          6th September 2024 at 11:08

          No I have not. But generally speaking – when conspiracies do exist, they often exist to cover up the cock-ups.

          Reply
  2. Edward McCamley says:
    30th August 2024 at 09:37

    One of the most commonly misunderstood ( and missapplied) phrases is ‘begging the question’. This is incorrectly understood as ‘raising the question’.

    But it doesn’t mean that. It applies to an argument or form of reasoning where the initial premis is taken as axiomatic. It seems to me that what is attributed to conspiracy is simply a form of question begging. Reasoning, often erudite, is simply added to the original assumption and, in the case of trials, injustice is perpetuated.

    Reply
  3. David McArthur says:
    30th August 2024 at 09:57

    Distinguished professionals (doctor accusers) go to the police and present their case against Lucy Letby. The police neither have the nous nor the will to be open minded, they are driven (it is their reason for being) to find crime. Immediately their mindset is that Lucy Letby is a murderer, they set out to build a convincing case against her. Crown Prosecution Services are – like the police – motivated, not by a sense of justice, but by successful prosecutions. Our courts are there to deliver the coup de gras, all component parts of our criminal justice system are weighted heavily against justice. And weighted heavily for prosecution. Things do not have to go wrong for miscarriages of justice to occur.

    Reply
    1. Charles says:
      31st August 2024 at 18:28

      It seems to me that there is often considerable criticism of conviction rates, suggesting that there is pressure to convict more rather than to improve accuracy

      Reply
    2. Lawrence Buckley says:
      4th September 2024 at 09:52

      If the courts go around slapping people in the face with a slice of bread and dripping, my respect for the majesty of the law will suffer a fatal blow.

      Reply
  4. RHA says:
    30th August 2024 at 10:36

    I very much enjoy your writing. I think the notion that the justice system is designed to be fair is an assumption at best hard to justify. I wonder that is because that the system of checks and balance are really not operating in ‘real time’, the incentives are not there for all parties and so on from a systems perspective [ which is a disciplines that is hard to master ].
    There are many examples to cite, though the most basic principle in that in criminal trials, the crown has unlimited resources and the defendant has limited resources, the limits of which are defined by the crown.
    I am not a lawyer, I am highlighting basic principles that may not support that justice system is designed to be just.

    Reply
    1. David Allen Green says:
      30th August 2024 at 11:16

      ” I think the notion that the justice system is designed to be fair is an assumption at best hard to justify.”

      I agree. The best we can ever hope for is to avoid needless unfairness.

      Reply
      1. RHA says:
        30th August 2024 at 19:17

        Thank you for your reply. I agree. . . Somehow don’t you think that we should have higher aspirations for our justice system.

        Reply
        1. David Allen Green says:
          30th August 2024 at 23:24

          Of course we should have higher aspirations; but we should also be realistic in our actual expectations.

          Reply
    2. Matt Flaherty says:
      30th August 2024 at 11:24

      It’s designed to not be unjust, but the design can never be perfect and the system will always fail in some respects. Failures should be investigated and openly acknowledged in order to make way for incremental improvements.

      Reply
      1. RHA says:
        30th August 2024 at 19:17

        Thank you. I very much agree with your observations.

        Reply
  5. Harry Smart says:
    30th August 2024 at 10:57

    I wonder if the binary choice between conspiracy theory – which by definition requires multiple bad actors – and cock-up theory – which only needs one – really applies to complex systems like the judicial system. I’ve no idea how you’d label the hybrid.

    The car analogy is a good one not least in that there are so many things that can go wrong. Cars, particularly modern cars with thousands of lines of computer code, are very complex systems.

    Add that to the ‘influenced by previous failings’ factor and potential points of failure multiply. A witness cocks up complex technical evidence then realises while the trial is underway, but is subject to all the fallacies and self-deceptions that make it hard for any of us to fix our cock-ups?

    I suspect there were deliberately malicious actors in the Letby case, but a court with few people competent to assess complex technical evidence just wasn’t up to spotting them, as courts might once have been able to do. Not hard to see how jurors, counsel and the bench could all independently cock-up. Not hard to see how that could be a widespread problem in the system. Like cars, forensic evidence has evolved to fearsome complexity, with scope for a multitude of obscure individual sins to go unseen.

    Reply
  6. Mark T says:
    30th August 2024 at 15:42

    In the aviation world (which I’m not part of, but read certain websites), you’ll often see reference to the Swiss Cheese model for accidents.

    Each slice of cheese is a safety barrier, but as the barriers move and change, sometimes there is an alignment of holes across all the slices, and the plane crashes.

    No single cause, but multiple simultaneous failures combine in a disastrous fashion. You can see how that model/analogy applies to many different domains including this one.

    Reply
    1. David Allen Green says:
      30th August 2024 at 23:23

      That is an interesting analogy – thank you.

      Reply
  7. Roger Gough says:
    30th August 2024 at 17:28

    A ‘systems failure’? It needs adjusting by someone who knows what they’re doing. A committee maybe?

    Reply
    1. jake says:
      3rd September 2024 at 22:48

      It’s not a system failure, it’s a feature.
      While catching and punishing/rehabilitating a perpetrator is the ideal, catching and prosecuting anyone plausibly guilty will do for the purposes of deterring others.

      Reply
      1. Matt Flaherty says:
        4th September 2024 at 08:33

        Sir William Blackstone turns in his grave.

        Reply
  8. Andrew Aylett says:
    30th August 2024 at 19:32

    Theories are falsifiable, and conspiracies definitely do happen so I think it’s reasonable to have theories about them.

    I’m fond of George Monbiot’s idea of “conspiracy fantasies” being the actual problem (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/may/04/youre-going-to-call-me-a-holocaust-denier-now-are-you-george-monbiot-comes-face-to-face-with-his-local-conspiracy-theorist). All too often, we see people espousing fantasy that doesn’t stand up to the least bit of critical analysis, and ignoring much more easily-proven issues.

    Reply
    1. David Allen Green says:
      30th August 2024 at 23:26

      Not all theories are falsifiable: the theory of evolution by natural selection cannot be in any meaningful way be falsified. Not all theories are within the province of experimental science.

      And conspiracies certainly do happen – often to cover-up the cockups.

      Reply
      1. Charles says:
        31st August 2024 at 18:35

        That theory could be falsified by proving that organisms have no mechanism to record changes. Originally, this was effectively a prediction. Then DNA was discovered.

        Or it could be falsified by the fossil record proving that organisms do not change over time. Or by there being a better theory for explaining the changes.

        Though, of course, falsifiablility does not apply to the underlying mathematical basis of the theory – evolution is a property of systems which have suitable properties and the science part is determining if it applies to a particular system.

        Reply
    2. Matt Flaherty says:
      31st August 2024 at 14:25

      It’s the unfalsifiability of many conspiracy theories that make them so enduring and attractive. As they say, you can’t prove a negative. Russell’s teapot: I can’t prove that there isn’t a teapot, too small to be seen with any equipment, orbiting earth. And I can’t prove to universal satisfaction that the Sandy Hook massacre really occurred, because any proof I offer is just part of the vast conspiracy.

      Reply
  9. Jim2 says:
    1st September 2024 at 07:48

    I am not so sure. In the case of simple random events – domestic murder, car crashes and the like there is no initiating system to speak of. Our justice system seems fairly good at catching small fry and good at missing the big fishes.

    Where I am not so sure is cases like Grenfell and possibly Letby. Having been involved in large scale projects there are often many places along the road where the possibility of bad things or bad practice are ignored or pushed aside as fussy or troublesome. Getting in the way of the larger project, making unecessary trouble and expense or being ‘unhelpful’. Back tracking to identify these places is very difficult.

    Not every t gets crossed or i gets dotted, budget cuts and the detail of decision making is seldom documented. Less cock up than part of the initiating system’s design.

    Reply
  10. David McArthur says:
    5th September 2024 at 07:22

    It appears to be extremely likely (David Davis used the words “extremely probable”) that Lucy Letby is entirely innocent and that there were no malevolent deaths at CoCH Hospital. The consensus among a great number of significant experts is that the guilty verdict is unsafe, at the very least unsafe. From the very outset this insignificant non-expert’s gut feeling was that Lucy Letby had been set up, was a scapegoat – such is my contempt for all forms of authority, and such is my contempt for large swathes of my fellow man. With the groundswell growing against this conviction it appears only a matter of time before Lucy Letby’s conviction will be squashed. H. M. Constabulary, Crown Prosecution Services, our courts of law – our criminal justice system in its entirety – will have lost one . What then of these esteemed institutions, most particularly of those individuals who populate these institutions, will our criminal justice system deal with them for malfeasance? Will damning and brutal words by officials be withdrawn? Will there be criminal consequences for those who glibly destroyed the life of a young woman?

    Reply
    1. Matt Flaherty says:
      6th September 2024 at 11:24

      I also tend to think it likely that she is innocent and not in fact a serial killer. I think it much less likely that a serial killer would continue to defend this. However, I don’t know.

      If it does turn out that she is innocent, we should note that there has been no attempted cover up or anything of the sort. On the contrary, there seems to be a real effort to uncover the truth.

      As DAG wrote previously, a deliberate strategic decision of the defence may have inadvertently increased the likelihood of conviction. It would have been a gamble to call their own expert, but you could also argue the opposite. It was a gamble not to call one.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Update – what is coming up.
Next Next post: Supporting Donald Trump is too much for Richard Cheney
Proudly powered by WordPress