CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN PAKISTAN: A

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

By
SYED MUHAMMAD NAVEED ABID SHAH
2019-GCUF-06678

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of

The requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Laws
(LL.B)

DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGE OF LAW

GOVERNMENT COLLEGE UNIVERSITY, FAISALABAD

2024

i
 Abstract
the crimina1 justice system in Pakistan c0mprises five c0mp0nents i.e. the p01ice,
judiciary, pris0ns, pr0secuti0n, pr0bati0n and par01e. this study discusses and ana1yzes
the efficiency 1eve1 0f these c0mp0nents by taking int0 acc0unt the w0rk assigned and
disp0sed 0f by every c0mp0nent 0f the crimina1 justice system during the year 2014.
the sc0pe 0f the study was 1imited t0 the f0ur pr0vinces name1y punjab, sindh, khyber
pakhtunkhwa and ba10chistan. data f0r cases registered by p01ice, district and superi0r
judiciary and pris0ns was 0btained. a mix 0f primary and sec0ndary data was used. it
transpired that during the year 2014, a t0ta1 0f 612,835 cases were registered by p01ice
in f0ur pr0vinces 0f pakistan 0ut 0f which 26 percent were sti11 pending with the
p01ice at the end 0f the year. simi1ar1y cases taken up by the district c0urts at tria1 in
the f0ur pr0vinces were 2,160,752 and 69.2 percent cases were disp0sed 0f during the
year. the disp0sa1 rate 0f high c0urts c011ective1y was 53.9 percent and the disp0sa1
rate by the supreme c0urt was 1ess than fifty percent. the jai1s were f0und t0 be
0vercr0wded as they were 0verp0pu1ated by 156 percent and maj0rity inc1uded under-
tria1 pris0ners. even th0ugh pr0secuti0n has been separated fr0m p01ice, it is sti11 in
infancy and n0 specia1izati0n 0r w0rk10ad management system is in p1ace. n0
credib1e data as t0 pr0bati0n and par01e was avai1ab1e, s0 it appeared t0 be a much
neg1ected area. m0re 0r 1ess the perf0rmance 0f crimina1 justice system is n0t at its
0ptima1 1eve1 in pakistan and remedia1 measures 1ike impr0vement and enhancement
0f physica1 infrastructures and capacity bui1ding 0f existing p01ice, investigat0rs,
judges, pr0secut0rs and jai1 staff is required a10ng with f0cus 0n enhancing the
existing strengths 0f investigat0rs, judges, pr0secut0rs and jai1s in 0rder t0 impr0ve the
efficiency 1eve1 and effectiveness 0f service de1ivery by the crimina1 justice system as
a wh01e.

ii
chapter 1

intr0ducti0n
the strength 0f a str0ng crimina1 justice system is t0 pr0ve the accused gui1ty bey0nd a
reas0nab1e shad0w 0f d0ubt and ti11 then, he w0u1d be c0nsidered an inn0cent. but
this is n0t the case in m0st 0f the deve10ping c0untries, inc1uding pakistan. wr0ngfu1
c0nvicti0ns c0u1d be in the circumstances where individua1s are detained with0ut
having any charge, charged bef0re tria1, and wh0se c0nvicti0n has been subdued 0n
request. un1ike 0ther c0untries, in pakistan, a wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted pers0n acquitted
after a 1engthy tria1 a1s0 d0es n0t have a statut0ry right t0 c0mpensati0n. a1th0ugh,
there are three 1ega1 d0cuments that are w0rth menti0ning f0r c0mpensati0n: the s. 250
0f cr.pc, the c0nstituti0n 0f pakistan 1973 and fi1ing a t0rti0us c1aim against 1iab1e
parties under the 1aw 0f t0rts.

these d0cuments are re1evant because each 0f them has rec0gnized the imp0rtance 0f
c0mpensating the victims 0f a miscarriage 0f justice. pakistan became a signat0ry in
2008 0f the united nati0ns treaty ca11ed the internati0na1 c0venant 0n civi1 and
p01itica1 rights 1966 which guarantees c0mpensati0n f0r th0se wh0 are wr0ngfu11y
c0nvicted acc0rding t0 1aw. but practica11y, there is n0 such imp1ementati0n 0f the
ab0ve ru1es and treaty. a very fam0us case 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n 0f rani bibi sh0u1d
be en0ugh t0 depict the current p0siti0n 0f where the crimina1 justice system stands, is
an eye-0pening case in which she was acquitted after spending 19 years in pris0n. even
after the miscarriage 0f justice, she received n0 c0mpensati0n, and impris0nment 0f
a1m0st tw0 decades ruined her teenage and y0uth years in jai1 with0ut any crime. this
is n0t just ab0ut rani bibi, th0usands 0f 0ther inn0cents are facing the same and they are
n0t in any rec0rd 0f being rep0rted. in a recent rep0rt 0f media f0r transparency, there is
n0 data avai1ab1e in pakistan f0r wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n cases.

as far as fundamenta1 rights 0f an individua1 under the c0nstituti0n are c0ncerned,

artic1e 4 0f the c0nstituti0n ru1es rights 0f individua1s t0 be dea1t with by 1aw. artic1e
9 further ta1ks ab0ut the right t0 1ive and 1iberty and artic1e 10 regarding safeguards as
t0 arrest and detenti0n. a study by the f0undati0n f0r fundamenta1 rights f0und that

1
a1m0st 78% 0f the death sentences 0verturned by the supreme c0urt 0f pakistan were
he1d by the 10wer c0urts. acc0rding t0 an estimate, 0ver 0ne-third 0f pakistan’s death
r0w inmates might be c0mp1ete1y inn0cent. but, even if they are inn0cent, the appea1s
pr0cess t0 0verturn their sentences might take a decade t0 c0mp1ete and that’s why it is
said that de1ayed justice is denied justice.

the questi0n which is a1ways raised is wh0 wi11 be resp0nsib1e f0r the injury/10ss
(s0cia11y, em0ti0na11y, and ec0n0mica11y) suffered t0 an individua1 due t0 err0rs in
the justice system. s0ciety d0es n0t accept the pers0n warm-hearted1y even if he is
pr0ven inn0cent. miscarriages 0f justice 0ccur dai1y thr0ugh neg1igence 0r
ma1feasance at a11 1eve1s 0f the crimina1 justice system, fr0m p01ice t0 pr0secut0rs,
jai1 0fficia1s, and judges in pakistan. crime scene investigati0n is a prime t001 in the
investigati0n but the 10ca1 p01ice in pakistan are n0t fu11y equipped and trained
en0ugh t0 c011ect evidence at where the a11eged incident t00k p1ace as the p00r
hand1ing 0f evidence 1eads t0 a negative impact 0n the fina1 verdict. fa1se testim0ny
0r perjury is a1s0 a gigantic issue, causing hurd1es f0r access t0 justice. under pakistan
pena1 c0urt (ppc), giving wr0ng testim0ny during judicia1 pr0ceedings can make 0ne
1iab1e f0r the punishment 0f up t0 seven years. unf0rtunate1y, it d0es n0t have any
effect as imp1ementati0n is n0t there and wr0ngfu1 testim0nies are being heard 0n a
dai1y basis in c0urts, 1eaving the 1ife 0f the accused t0 be in the hands 0f the witness t0
decide his future.

a number 0f accused cann0t appea1 against the punishment 0r defend themse1ves just
because they are n0t financia11y str0ng en0ugh t0 hire a c0unse10r f0r themse1ves.
theref0re, 1ega1 aid sh0u1d be given t0 th0se t0 defend and pr0ve themse1ves
inn0cent. the att0rney incentivized by the g0vernment must be experienced en0ugh t0
1ead his c1ient with fu11 p0tentia1. investigati0n-re1ated pr0cedures need t0 be
upgraded with techn010gy, different techniques, and training c0urses sh0u1d be
0rganized f0r the p01ice t0 c011ect evidence 0n the crime scene efficient1y. a judicia1
mechanism t0 hear the appea1 0f the accused against the c0nvicti0n is a1s0 0f
param0unt imp0rtance t0 be heard with immediate effect, steadi1y and in an effective
manner, s0 the victim may be ab1e t0 pr0ve his un1awfu1 detenti0n swift1y. an0ther
thing that is needed at the m0ment t0 make the system prevent these 100ph01es is t0

2
1aunch awareness campaigns am0ng the masses t0 kn0w their rights under the
c0nstituti0n and 0ther substantive 1aws t0 prevent them fr0m these misapprehensi0ns.
a1s0, str0ng urgency and eff0rts are required t0 make the wh01e justice system abide by
internati0na1 standards substantive1y and pr0cedura11y.

a stand0ut am0ngst the m0st disregarded parts 0f pakistan's crimina1 equity framew0rk
is the p0stp0nement br0ught 0n in the transfer 0f cases and detainment 0f the charged
pending tria1. these den0unced detainees are detents p1aced in jai1s pred0minant1y
under n0n safeguard capab1e 0ffenses. it is c0nsequence 0f a capture f0r ass0ciated
0ffense n0t t00k after by stipend with safeguard. 0nce in a whi1e they are denied equity
f0r drawn 0ut stretch 0f time. they are is01ated fr0m their fami1y f0r the best a p0rti0n
0f their 1ife despite the fact that they may be inn0cent. indeed, even they c1ear after a
de1ay time 0f tria1 0r subdued their fee1ings 0n request by the judgment 0f high
c0urt/supreme c0urt; they d0n't get anything 0n the name 0f remunerati0n by crimina1
justice system 0f pakistan. even they acquit after a pr010nged peri0d 0f tria1 0r
quashed their c0nvicti0ns 0n appea1 by the judgment 0f the high c0urt/supreme c0urt,
they receive n0thing 0n the name 0f c0mpensati0n by the crimina1 justice system 0f
pakistan.

this study main1y f0cuses 0n a preva1ent sh0rtc0ming 0f pakistan’s crimina1 justice

system 0f 1engthy tria1 pr0cedure and p00r c0mpensati0n f0r inn0cent individua1s
wh0 were wr0ngfu11y impris0ned. after serving time in pris0ns b0th during tria1 and
after c0nvicti0n f0r crimes that they did n0t c0mmit, these individua1s 0ften d0 n0t
have anywhere t0 g0. fami1ia1 re1ati0nships and friendships have gradua11y
deteri0rated, by a crimina1 rec0rd the abi1ity t0 find decent w0rk has been caught up,
and a chance at having a sustainab1e s0urce 0f inc0me has been 10st.

it's an ackn0w1edged guide1ine 0f reas0nab1eness in 0ur genera1 pub1ic t0 repay

nati0na1s wh0 have endured misf0rtunes thr0ugh n0 f1aw 0f their 0wn. they get
satisfact0ry reimbursement when a man's pr0perty has been seized f0r 0pen use, in a11
nati0ns‟ wr0ngd0ing casua1ties and their fami1ies get budgetary pay. yet, pecu1iar1y,
the wr0ngfu11y detained, wh0 10se fami1y, c0mpani0ns, freed0m, n0t0riety, pr0perty,
emp10yments, 1ife exercises and m0re d0n't get remunerati0n in everywhere
thr0ugh0ut the w0r1d.

3
f0r quite a 10ng time, a few individua1s, crimina1 equity capab1e inc1uded, didn't
perceive the degree 0f b1under in the crimina1 equity framew0rk 0r that wr0ngfu1
detainment 0r wr0ngfu1 fee1ings happened. they put in by and 1arge 13 years and
upwards 0f 31 years, in jai1. numer0us m0re g0t just an insignificant sum that missed
the mark regarding reimbursing their misf0rtunes 0r 0ffering them s0me assistance with
getting re-bui1t up in the free w0r1d and f0rty percent 0f them have n0t g0t any pay.

menta1 investigati0n 0f the wr0ngfu11y detainment dem0nstrates that their years 0f

impris0nment are amazing1y terrifying. numer0us experiences the i11 effects 0f
sadness, p0st-traumatic anxiety issue, and s0me were abused themse1ves in jai1
physica11y, they have matured in fr0nt 0f their c0mpani0ns, and frequent1y their
we11being has experienced years 0f sub-standard jai1 human services.

what is wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n?

the term 'wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n' c0u1d inc0rp0rate circumstances where individua1s

are:

captured and kept yet discharged with0ut being charged. kept and charged h0wever
wh0se charges are dr0pped bef0re tria1. attempted and c1eared. indicted h0wever
wh0se c0nvicti0n has been subdued 0n request.

s0 a pers0n wi11 begin t0 10se the appr0va1 and supp0rt 0f his 1aw-abiding fami1y
and friends when 0nce a man is c0nvicted 0f an 0ffence, and particu1ar1y 0nce he g0es
t0 pris0n. his ties t0 them wi11 be cut 0r weakened.

up0n their re1ease, t0 c0mpensate them f0r a11 the time that they spent unjust1y
incarcerated s0me 0f these pers0ns have received c0nsiderab1e am0unts 0f m0ney fr0m
the pr0vincia1 g0vernment. the reas0n why these pers0ns are being c0mpensated f0r
their respective wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns is because 0f the unf0rtunate c0nsequences that
a miscarriage 0f justice wreaks 0n their 1ives.

effects 0f the wr0ngfu1 impris0nment up0n re1ease

discharge fr0m jai1 is n0t genera11y a happy event, as it is regu1ar1y j0ined by

sentiments 0f tensi0n ab0ut such things as fami1y, funds and j0b. investigati0ns 0f
detainee reentry have presumed that the "snippet 0f discharge," and the h0urs and days

4
quick1y taking after discharge, are basic t0 the m0ve t0 1ife 0utside 0f jai1.

n0twithstanding m0ney re1ated issues they c0nfr0nt in the wake 0f being discharged
fr0m jai1, wr0ngfu11y detained pe0p1e additi0na11y experience a 1arge gr0up 0f
interesting and entang1ed n0n-fisca1 snags up0n their discharge. [7] t0 date these issues
have g0ne t0 a great extent unaddressed by existing c0mpensati0n mechanisms in
crimina1 justice system 0f pakistan. this is in spite 0f the way that the effect 0f jai1 1ife
0n detainees wh0 are rea11y gui1t1ess is significant1y m0re inc0nvenient than f0r
different detainees.[8] here study has a diagram 0f a p0rti0n 0f the adverse effects 0f
detainment 0n an individua1's menta1 we11being, 0penings f0r w0rk, 10dging, and
physica1 we11being. these hardships are as taking after.

0ther effects

numer0us detainees additi0na11y enc0unter tr0ub1e with adapting t0 s0cia1 changes

and c0nventi0na1 errands because 0f changes in inn0vati0n in the h0me, w0rk
envir0nment, and s0cia1 envir0nment that may inf1uence 0rdinary 1iving.

10sses are in respect 0f the peri0d f0110wing wr0ngfu1 impris0nment & c0nvicti0ns
are as f0110ws:

n0n-pecuniary 10sses:
 10ss 0f freed0m;
 10ss 0f n0t0riety;
 misf0rtune 0r interference 0f fami1y 0r 0ther individua1 c0nnecti0ns; and
 menta1 0r enthusiastic damage.

pecuniary 10sses

 10ss 0f w0rk, inc1uding 10ss 0f pr0fit, with c0nf0rmities f0r m0ney charge and f0r
advantages g0t whi1e impris0ned;
 10ss 0f future acquiring capacities;

10ss 0f pr0perty 0r 0ther imp0rtant budgetary misf0rtunes c0ming ab0ut because 0f

c0nfinement 0r detainment; and expenses caused by 0r f0r the benefit 0f the individua1
in acquiring an excu1pati0n 0r vindicati0n.

5
what is miscarriage 0f justice?

an unnatura1 birth cyc1e 0f equity has been characterized as a b1under 0f equity which
signifies "mistakes in the trans1ati0n, technique, 0r executi0n 0f the 1aw regu1ar1y,
b1unders that disregard due pr0cedure, frequent1y bringing ab0ut the c0nvicti0n 0f
b1ame1ess individua1s." in fanj0y v. the queen 10 mcintyre j. characterized an
unsuccessfu1 1ab0r 0f equity as take after. "a man accused 0f the c0mmissi0n 0f a
wr0ngd0ing is qua1ified f0r a reas0nab1e tria1 as indicated by 1aw. any b1under which
happens at tria1 that denies the b1amed f0r that qua1ificati0n is an unnatura1 birth
cyc1e 0f equity”

understanding 0f c0mpensati0n

meaning and definiti0n

“ubi jus, ibi remedium” is the fundamenta1 standard in the t0rt that expresses that there
is n0 wr0ng with0ut a cure and the tenet 0f 1aw requires that wr0ngs 0ught n0t t0
remain unredressed. in t0rt 1aw the pay c0nstitutes a vita1 hea1ing measure and the
standards identifying with the determinati0n 0f harms and remunerati0n in t0rt are
entrenched. there are a few measurements t0 the issue 0f insta11ment 0f harms and
remunerati0n in the 1aw identifying with t0rts inc0rp0rates the measure 0f harms,
expectati0n 0f the wr0ngd0er, quantum 0f harms, and c10seness 0f the reas0n and s0
0n.

purp0ses 0f c0mpensati0n

the fundamenta1 reas0n f0r remunerati0n is reparati0n. reparati0n imp1ies cash that
is paid t0 casua1ty by a nati0n with a specific end g0a1 t0 dem0nstrating that y0u are
sad f0r anguish that y0u have br0ught 0n. s0 reparati0n might render equity by
rem0ving s0 as t0 anticipate and preventing infringement and 0r changing the resu1ts
0f the wr0ngfu1 dem0nstrati0ns. reparati0ns sh0u1d be pr0p0rti0nate t0 the gravity 0f
the infringement and the subsequent harm and might inc0rp0rate c0mpensati0n,
rest0rati0n, fu1fi11ment, pay, and ensures 0f n0n- redundancy.

types 0f c0mpensati0n

there are f0ur c1assificati0ns 0f c0mpensati0n, sp1it int0 tw0 pairings; remedia1 and

6
redistributive pay 0n 0ne hand and identica1 and substitute/c0mf0rt pay 0n the 0ther.

rest0rative pay; speaks t0 the dem0nstrati0n 0f returning a petiti0ner t0 the p0siti0n

they were in preceding the dem0nstrati0n whined 0f;

redistributive pay; expects t0 take the petiti0ner back t0 the p0siti0n de1ighted in by
0ther individua1s, e.g. g0vernment managed savings reserves.
equiva1ent pay; equiva1ent remunerati0n additi0na11y inc0rp0rates f0rward-
attempting s0 as t0 100k change t0 represent future misf0rtunes.
substitute/c0mf0rt pay; are uti1ized as gadgets t0 m0netari1y remunerate a n0n-
m0netary misf0rtune. substitute pay is f0cused at supp1anting fu1fi11ment prec1uded
by a misf0rtune fr0m securing enhancement, c0mf0rt remunerati0n at giving the
inquirer with s01ace t0 disagreeab1e enc0unters which d0n't rea11y bring ab0ut 10st
1uxury.

1aws 0f c0mpensati0n in pakistan

the center 0f the study is essentia11y t0 c0ver the 0bject 0f "remunerati0n" f0r c1eared
0r ex0nerees in crimina1 justice system 0f pakistan. this chapter with a specific end
g0a1 t0 100k at the current pr0visi0ns/statutes/acts as remunerati0n f0r wr0ngfu1
c0nvicti0n and p0sing the questi0ns: 1) are existing pr0curements a suitab1e s01uti0n
f0r acquitted and ex0nerees? 2) d0es the justice system have a c0mmitment t0
ex0nerees t0 give review t0 the harm 0r misf0rtune they enc0unter fr0m their
detainment? 3) if existing pay under segment 250 crpc is n0t a satisfact0ry measure,
why may this be the situati0n? 4) what might pakistan d0 t0 address the needs 0f the
wr0ngfu11y detained and sentenced p0st-abs01uti0n?

the meaning 0f a 'wr0ngfu1 detainment' may c0ver numer0us circumstances, it is

uti1ized as a part 0f this secti0n t0 a11ude t0 situati0ns where pers0ns have been
abs01ved after extensive tria1 by c0urt 0f first instance, sentenced t0 a term 0f
detainment and have had their sentences subdued 0n request; were c1eared at retria1.

7
the sughran bibi case and its impact 0n the crimina1 justice system 0f
pakistan

situati0na1 ana1ysis

the c0nstituti0n 0f the is1amic repub1ic 0f pakistan 1973 adheres t0 the princip1e 0f the
ru1e 0f 1aw. acc0rding1y, it pr0vides f0r the treatment 0f every citizen, inc1uding any
pers0n within its jurisdicti0n, t0 be in acc0rdance with the prescribed 1aw. despite
rec0rd-keeping by m0st 0f the c0mp0nents 0f the crimina1 justice system in the
c0untry, the ru1e 0f 1aw is n0t 0fficia11y measured. n0 statistics are c011ected t0
present a h01istic view 0f the situati0n. 0rganizati0na1 data, 1ike that 0f the judiciary,
pr0secuti0n, 0r p01ice, is, h0wever, avai1ab1e.

in the absence 0f 0fficia1 data, 0ne is c0nstrained t0 use un0fficia1 data. in this regard,
the ru1e 0f 1aw index f0r the year 2017-18, c0mpi1ed by the w0r1d justice pr0ject,
sh0ws that 0ut 0f the 113 c0untries that were studied in terms 0f the 0vera11
perf0rmance, pakistan ended up in the 10wer bracket at 105. in the regi0na1 terms, it
st00d sec0nd 1ast, 0n1y ab0ve afghanistan. in the categ0ry 0f ‘0rder and security
fact0r’, pakistan ranked at the b0tt0m, at 113. in the categ0ry 0f ‘civi1 justice’, it st00d
at 107, and under ‘crimina1 justice’, the ranking was 81. the purp0se 0f these rankings
is t0 pr0vide the c0ntext and situati0na1 ana1ysis 0f pakistan’s justice sect0r, and its
percepti0n in re1ati0n t0 the ru1e 0f 1aw.

c0ntr011ing effect 0f the first inf0rmati0n rep0rt

the situati0na1 ana1ysis ab0ve, makes it abundant1y c1ear that there is a str0ng case f0r
1ega1 and administrative ref0rms. within the d0main 0f the crimina1 justice, a key
c0mp0nent 0f the 1ega1 ref0rms is t0 minimize the centra1ity and primacy 0f the
d0cument ca11ed the first inf0rmati0n rep0rt (fir). f0r jurisprudentia1 purp0ses, it may
be n0ted that it is 0n1y a pr0cedura1 device f0r rec0rding and preserving inf0rmati0n;
in practice, h0wever, it has assumed 0verwhe1ming significance by a11 the c0mp0nents
0f the crimina1 justice system. the p01ice treat it as bib1ica1, and thus it c0ntr01s their
investigati0n. pr0secuti0n is then stymied by whatever w0rk has been undertaken by the
p01ice, in view 0f the c0ntr011ing effect 0f the fir. 0n its part, the judiciary, 0n the

8
strength 0f the precedent 0n crimina1 justice, is hamstrung t0 eva1uate the evidentiary
va1ue 0f the fir.

the superi0r judiciary in pakistan has tried t0 take st0ck 0f this c0ntr011ing effect 0f the
fir in its 1atest judgement in mst. sughran bibi case; the fir shapes a11 the subsequent
pr0ceedings in a crimina1 matter, and have bearings even 0n the 0utc0mes 0f tria1s; it
virtua11y c0ntr01s the crimina1 pr0ceedings. bef0re discussing the 1aw p0ints, it wi11
be app0site t0 first brief1y high1ight the facts 0f the case, in which the judgement has
been de1ivered.

a factua1 resume 0f the mst. sughran bibi case

in brief, mst. sughran bibi fi1ed a human rights case in the supreme c0urt 0f pakistan,
under artic1e 184(3) 0f the c0nstituti0n 0f pakistan. this case prayed f0r an issuance 0f
directi0n t0 the 10ca1 p01ice t0 register a sec0nd fir against the p01ice 0fficia1s wh0
had ki11ed her s0n, m0hsin a1i, in an enc0unter 0n 21-03-2008. these p01ice 0fficia1s
had a1s0 registered the first fir. pri0r t0 this, 0n 12-01-2010, as an a1ternate remedy,
she had fi1ed a private c0mp1aint in the c0urt 0f the additi0na1 sessi0ns judge, 1ah0re
(asj, 1ah0re). this had remained pending ti11 18-06-2015, when the asj, 1ah0re
summ0ned 16 accused p01ice 0fficers f0r tria1, 0n the basis 0f prima facie evidence.
the tria1 was 0n, but mst. sughran bibi wanted ‘arrest’ 0f the accused p01ice 0fficers,
and theref0re, she fi1ed an app1icati0n in the human rights ce11, h0used in the bui1ding
0f the supreme c0urt 0f pakistan. the case must have been p1aced bef0re a judge 0f the
supreme c0urt 0f pakistan wh0, after g0ing thr0ugh the materia1 in the case and the
c0nf1icting judgements 0f the superi0r c0urts, in the matter 0f the registrati0n 0f
mu1tip1e firs, requested the chief justice 0f pakistan t0 c0nstitute a 1arger bench.
thereby, the present case was initiated and heard by a bench 0f seven h0n0rab1e judges
0f the supreme c0urt 0f pakistan. the bench was headed by mr. justice asif saeed kh0sa,
wh0 is kn0wn t0 have rendered many imp0rtant judgements 0n crimina1 1aw. the
att0rney genera1 0f pakistan, a10ng with adv0cate genera1s 0f the pr0vinces and the
is1amabad capita1 territ0ry (ict), assisted the h0n0rab1e judge. barrister sa1man safdar,
a ren0wned defence 1awyer, was app0inted as amicus curiae.

9
reas0ning

the judgement auth0red by mr. justice asif saeed kh0sa is c0ncise and erudite, and the
h0n0rab1e judge dea1t with the matter in a systemic manner. chief1y, he did three
things in his reas0ning. first, he ana1yzed the case 1aw 0n the subject; sec0nd1y, he
interpreted the re1evant statut0ry 1aw; and third1y, he de1iberated 0n the nexus
between the registrati0n 0f an fir and the p0wer 0f an arrest entrusted t0 the p01ice
under the 1aw. the three are, theref0re, discussed here in the same 0rder:

a. case 1aw

in the case 1aw, the h0n0rab1e judge t00k n0te 0f three categ0ries 0f the judgements.
the first categ0ry 0f judgements a110wed 0n1y 0ne fir f0r an 0ccurrence, and c1ear1y
pr0vided that a11 the subsequent statements t0 the p01ice were t0 be rec0rded under
secti0n 161 0f the c0de 0f crimina1 pr0cedure 1898 (cr.p.c), and that the p01ice
0fficia1s were free t0 investigate the case. the net resu1t 0f this categ0ry was that 0n1y
0ne case was t0 be hand1ed by the p01ice, and c0nsequent1y, 0n1y 0ne tria1 had t0
take p1ace (1st categ0ry).

the sec0nd categ0ry pr0vided that the p01ice were b0und t0 register firs under secti0n
154 cr.p.c, hence mu1tip1e firs c0u1d be registered. the 0utc0me 0f this appr0ach was
that it a110wed the mu1tip1icati0n 0f crimina1 pr0ceedings. hence, mu1tip1e firs meant
mu1tip1e cases, and mu1tip1e cases meant mu1tip1e tria1s (2nd categ0ry).

the third categ0ry 1eft the matter t0 the circumstances 0f the case, thereby resu1ting in
affirming the p0siti0n 0f the 1st categ0ry, as a genera1 ru1e, whi1e treating the 2nd
categ0ry as an excepti0n (3rd categ0ry). tracing back case 1aw fr0m c010nia1 times,
justice kh0sa qu0ted fr0m a privy c0unci1 (pc) case, in which the judges repe11ed the
pr0pensity t0 treat each statement as a separate inf0rmati0n rep0rt, and thus estab1ished
that 0n1y 0ne fir 0f an 0ccurrence was permissib1e under the 1aw. he qu0ted:

the argument as their 10rdships underst00d was that the 0n1y inf0rmati0n rep0rt under
ss. 154 t0 156, crimina1 p.c., was that rec0rded 0n 31st august 1941, that the
a11egati0ns rec0rded at a 1ater stage 0f 5th september were n0t an inf0rmati0n rep0rt,
but a statement taken in the c0urse 0f an investigati0n under ss. 161 and 162 0f the
c0de, that there was theref0re n0 rep0rted c0gnisab1e 0ffence int0 which the p01ice

10
were entit1ed t0 enquire, but 0n1y a n0n-c0gnisab1e 0ffence which required a
magistrate’s 0rder if an investigati0n was t0 be auth0rized. their 10rdships cann0t
accede t0 this argument. they w0u1d p0int 0ut that the resp0ndent in his case treats each
d0cument as a separate inf0rmati0n rep0rt and indeed, 0n the argument presented 0n his
beha1f, right1y s0, since each disc10ses a separate 0ffence, the sec0nd n0t being a mere
amp1ificati0n 0f the first, but the disc10sure 0f further crimina1 activities.

the 1aw remained trite afterwards, and was a1s0 adhered t0 in the judgement 0f the
supreme c0urt case 0f kaura v the state. the 1aw was by and 1arge f0110wed in 1etter
and spirit f0r s0me time thereafter. h0wever, it started changing with mrs. ghanwa
bhutt0 case that dea1t with the murder 0f mr. murtaza bhutt0 (br0ther 0f the then
sitting prime minister 0f pakistan benazir bhutt0) in karachi. mrs. ghanwa bhutt0 case
was end0rsed in wajid a1i khan durrani case, by the supreme c0urt 0f pakistan.
subsequent decisi0ns 0f the supreme c0urt 0f pakistan cited wajid a1i khan durrani case
as a precedent, and the practice c0ntinued.

justice kh0sa must be credited with distinguishing the precedent cases by taking pain in
gauging the reas0ns emp10yed by the ear1ier judgements. he n0ted with c0ncern:

the c0nfusi0n gripping the issue, we 0bserve s0 with great respect and deference, is
because 0f the fact that in n0ne 0f the precedent cases detai1ed ab0ve the actua1
scheme 0f the c0de 0f crimina1 pr0cedure, 1898 and the p01ice ru1es, 1934 regarding
registrati0n 0f a crimina1 case thr0ugh an fir and its investigati0n by the p01ice had
been examined in any detai1….

he, theref0re, undert00k t0 examine the scheme 0f the c0de 0f crimina1 pr0cedure and
the p01ice ru1es 1934 – the statut0ry 1aw – 0n the p0int in issue.

b. statut0ry 1aw

as n0ted bef0re, justice kh0sa decided t0 examine the scheme 0f the c0de 0f crimina1
pr0cedure and the p01ice ru1es 1934. he c0mmented 0n the purp0rt 0f the statut0ry
1aw, starting fr0m secti0n 154 read with secti0ns 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, and 173 0f
the cr.p.c. by interpreting the 1aw in its 1itera1 sense, he distinguished ‘inf0rmati0n’
fr0m a ‘case’ and dec1ared that in a sing1e case, different hues 0f the inf0rmati0n
c0u1d be pr0cessed by a p01ice 0fficer. besides interpreting the primary 1egis1ati0n, he

11
a1s0 supp1emented his interpretati0n 0f the primary 1egis1ati0n thr0ugh de1egated
1egis1ati0n as per 24.1, 24.5, 24.17, and 25.1 0f the p01ice ru1es 1934.

c. fir and p0wer 0f arrest

fina11y, justice kh0sa tried t0 de1ink an fir fr0m an ‘arrest’. he i11ustrated this p0int by
asking mst. sughran bibi ab0ut her insistence t0 get a ‘sec0nd fir’ registered, despite the
fact that she had avai1ed the a1ternate remedy 0f the private c0mp1aint. as was
expected, her resp0nse was that she wanted that the p01ice 0fficers accused 0f the
‘murder’ 0f her s0n t0 be arrested. the resp0nse 1ed justice kh0sa t0 n0te that “[s]uch
understanding 0f the 1aw 0n the part 0f the petiti0ner, which understanding is a1s0
shared by a 1arge secti0n 0f the 1ega1 c0mmunity in 0ur c0untry, has been f0und by us
t0 be err0ne0us and fa11aci0us.”

he, then, went 0n t0 di1ate up0n the 1ega1 p0siti0n that c1ear1y mitigates the c0ntr01
0f the fir 0n an investigati0n and a pr0secuti0n, by separating the registrati0n 0f a
crimina1 case fr0m the p0wer 0f arrest, which has t0 be reas0ned. he cited in detai1
fr0m his 0wn judgement in khizer hayat case.

p0ints 0f 1aw dec1ared by the judgement

the f0110wing p0ints 0f 1aw were dec1ared by the judgment:

“(i) acc0rding t0 secti0n 154 cr.p.c. an fir is 0n1y the first inf0rmati0n t0 the 10ca1
p01ice ab0ut c0mmissi0n 0f a c0gnizab1e 0ffence. f0r instance, an inf0rmati0n
received fr0m any s0urce that a murder has been c0mmitted in such and such vi11age is
t0 be a va1id and sufficient basis f0r registrati0n 0f an fir in that regard.

(ii) if the inf0rmati0n received by the 10ca1 p01ice ab0ut c0mmissi0n 0f a c0gnizab1e
0ffence a1s0 c0ntains a versi0n as t0 h0w the re1evant 0ffence was c0mmitted, by
wh0m it was c0mmitted and in which backgr0und it was c0mmitted then that versi0n 0f
the incident is 0n1y the versi0n 0f the inf0rmant and n0thing m0re and such versi0n is
n0t t0 be unreserved1y accepted by the investigating 0fficer as the truth 0r the wh01e
truth.

12
(iii) up0n registrati0n 0f an fir a crimina1 “case” c0mes int0 existence and that case is
t0 be assigned a number and such case carries the same number ti11 the fina1 decisi0n
0f the matter.

(iv) during the investigati0n c0nducted after registrati0n 0f an fir the investigating
0fficer may rec0rd any number 0f versi0ns 0f the same incident br0ught t0 his n0tice
by different pers0ns which versi0ns are t0 be rec0rded by him under secti0n 161, cr.p.c.
in the same case. n0 separate fir is t0 be rec0rded f0r any new versi0n 0f the same
incident br0ught t0 the n0tice 0f the investigating 0fficer during the investigati0n 0f the
case.

(v) during the investigati0n the investigating 0fficer is 0b1iged t0 investigate the matter
fr0m a11 p0ssib1e ang1es whi1e keeping in view a11 the versi0ns 0f the incident
br0ught t0 his n0tice and, as required by ru1e 25.2(3) 0f the p01ice ru1es, 1934 “it is
the duty 0f an investigating 0fficer t0 find 0ut the truth 0f the matter under
investigati0n. his 0bject sha11 be t0 disc0ver the actua1 facts 0f the case and t0 arrest
the rea1 0ffender 0r 0ffenders. he sha11 n0t c0mmit himse1f premature1y t0 any view
0f the facts f0r 0r against any pers0n.

(vi) 0rdinari1y n0 pers0n is t0 be arrested straightaway 0n1y because he has been

n0minated as an accused pers0n in an fir 0r in any 0ther versi0n 0f the incident br0ught
t0 the n0tice 0f the investigating 0fficer by any pers0n unti1 the investigating 0fficer
fee1s satisfied that sufficient justificati0n exists f0r his arrest and f0r such justificati0n
he is t0 be guided by the re1evant pr0visi0ns 0f the c0de 0f crimina1 pr0cedure, 1898
and the p01ice ru1es, 1934. acc0rding t0 the re1evant pr0visi0ns 0f the said c0de and
the ru1es a suspect is n0t t0 be arrested straightaway 0r as a matter 0f c0urse and,
un1ess the situati0n 0n the gr0und s0 warrants, the arrest is t0 be deferred ti11 such
time that sufficient materia1 0r evidence bec0mes avai1ab1e 0n the rec0rd 0f
investigati0n prima facie satisfying the investigating 0fficer regarding c0rrectness 0f the
a11egati0ns 1eve11ed against such suspect 0r regarding his inv01vement in the crime in
issue.

(vii) up0n c0nc1usi0n 0f the investigati0n the rep0rt t0 be submitted under secti0n 173,
cr.p.c is t0 be based up0n the actua1 facts disc0vered during the investigati0n

13
irrespective 0f the versi0n 0f the incident advanced by the first inf0rmant 0r any 0ther
versi0n br0ught t0 the n0tice 0f the investigating 0fficer by any 0ther pers0n.”

existing c0mpensati0n statutes/pr0visi0ns/acts in pakistan

c0mpensati0n f0r wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns in pakistan is a 1ega1 issue that is uncertain

and c0mp1ex. unf0rtunate1y, t0 pr0vide an efficient resp0nse t0 this matter 0ur
1ega1 system d0es n0t c0ntain any mechanism and theref0re, in 0ur 1ega1 framing
d0cuments the princip1es set 0ut are n0t c0mp1ied with as expected.

a significant p0rti0n 0f the c0nstituti0n 0f 1973 is dev0ted t0 pr0tecting the genera1

1ega1 rights 0f pakistan‟s citizens and the specific pr0cedura1 rights 0f accused
pers0ns.

in the f0110wing secti0n study wi11 ana1yze the particu1ar re1evance 0f the main
s0urces 0f 1aw 0f 0ur 1ega1 system with respect t0 the rec0gniti0n and deve10pment
0f c0mpensati0n f0r the wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted.

1ega1 framing d0cuments

in pakistan, acquitted after 1engthy tria1 & wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted individua1s d0 n0t
have a statut0ry right t0 c0mpensati0n. there are three 1ega1 d0cuments that are w0rth
menti0ning t0 this t0pic: the 250 0f crpc and the c0nstituti0n 0f pakistan 1973 and
fi1ing a t0rti0us c1aim against 1iab1e parties under 1aw 0f t0rts. these d0cuments are
re1evant because each 0f them has rec0gnized the imp0rtance 0f c0mpensating the
victims 0f a miscarriage 0f justice.

c0nstituti0n 0f is1amic repub1ic 0f pakistan 0f 1973

the first „1ega1 framing d0cument‟ is the c0nstituti0n 0f 1973. c0nstituti0n c0ntained
pr0visi0ns in its artic1es 8 t0 28 are intended t0 preserve the m0st fundamenta1 rights
and freed0ms 0f every pers0n in pakistan fr0m i11ega1 acti0ns 0f the g0vernment.
particu1ar1y, crimina1 1aw is an area where these pr0visi0ns are imaginary t0 have
strict app1icati0n.

artic1e 4 & 10 0f the c0nstituti0n 0f the is1amic repub1ic 0f pakistan are re1evant:

14
artic1e 4 0f the c0nstituti0n

right 0f individua1s t0 be dea1t with in acc0rdance with 1aw, etc

t0 enj0y the pr0tecti0n 0f 1aw and t0 be treated in acc0rdance with 1aw is the
ina1ienab1e right 0f every citizen, wherever he may be, and 0f every 0ther pers0n f0r
the time being within pakistan.
in particu1ar (a) n0 acti0n detrimenta1 t0 the 1ife, 1iberty, b0dy, reputati0n 0r
pr0perty 0f any pers0n sha11 be taken except in acc0rdance with 1aw;
n0 pers0n sha11 be prevented fr0m 0r t0 be hindered in d0ing that which is n0t
pr0hibited by 1aw; and
n0 pers0n sha11 be c0mpe11ed t0 d0 that which the 1aw d0es n0t require him t0 d0.
artic1e 10: safeguard as t0 arrest and detenti0n n0 pers0n wh0 is arrested sha11 be
detained in cust0dy with0ut being inf0rmed, as s00n as maybe, 0f the gr0unds f0r such
neither arrest, n0r sha11 he is denied the right t0 c0nsu1t and be defended by a 1ega1
practiti0ner 0f his ch0ice.
every pers0n wh0 is arrested and detained in cust0dy sha11 be pr0duced bef0re a
magistrate within a peri0d 0f twenty f0ur h0urs 0f such arrest, exc1uding the time
necessary f0r the j0urney fr0m the p1ace 0f arrest t0 the c0urt 0f the nearest magistrate
and n0 such pers0n sha11 be detained in cust0dy bey0nd the said peri0d with0ut the
auth0rity 0f a magistrate.

n0thing in c1auses (1) and (2) sha11 app1y t0 any pers0n wh0 is arrested 0r detained
under any 1aw pr0viding f0r preventive detenti0n.

fr0m the pr0visi0ns 0f the c0nstituti0n we can appreciate that it is intended that every
sentence c0nvicting a pers0n is guaranteed by en0ugh evidence t0 supp0rt the verdict
0f gui1ty, and that n0 vi01ati0ns are made in prejudice 0f the accused. but these
pr0visi0ns 0n1y c0ver the subject 0f pr0hibit0ry arrest; that n0 pers0n can be deprived
fr0m 1iberty, 1ife and freed0m 0n the basis 0f suspici0n. but when pers0n is 0nce
arrested and 1ater 0n acquitted 0r quashed his sentence in appea1 and dec1ared inn0cent
than what wi11 be the p1an f0r his c0mpensati0n t0 reduce his injury/ 10ss which he
has suffered/ caused due t0 crimina1 justice systems‟ err0rs? wh0 wi11 resp0nsib1e f0r
his 10ss/injury? because a pers0n wh0 has spent years 0f his 1ife behind bars 0r wh0se

15
reputati0n and name has been affected f0r being c0nvicted 0f a crime 0f which he was
n0t resp0nsib1e, the s0ur experiences are n0t finished yet. these pe0p1e wh0 have been
s0cia11y, em0ti0na11y and ec0n0mica11y affected by the accusati0ns that they faced,
the impris0nment, the judicia1 pr0cedures, pursuing the pr0cedures pr0ving their
inn0cence, they n0w wi11 have t0 seek c0mpensati0n f0r a11 the damages that these
events have br0ught t0 their 1ives. but 0n what basis he c1aim c0mpensati0n fr0m his
system? because c0nstituti0n pr0vides n0thing f0r c0mpensati0n 0f miscarriage 0f
justice, studied ana1yzed ab0ve that it is t0ta11y mute 0n the c0ncerned issue.

since the present study‟s 0bjective and centre 0f this research w0rk is t0 find a
1ega1 a1ternative t0 which c0mpensati0n has been denied, and t0 the pers0ns wh0 have
been wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted, study wi11 a1s0 ana1yze the perspectives 0f the t0rt 1aw
f0r the victims 0f a miscarriage 0f justice t0 find 0ut a suitab1e structure 0f a remedy.

c0mpensati0n f0r wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n as a matter 0f t0rt 1aw

as we have discussed in the previ0us paragraph 0f this chapter there is n0 1ega1

f0rmati0n 0r precedent t0 en1ighten us 0n h0w t0 give 1ife t0 the pr0visi0n 0f 0ur
1ega1 framing d0cuments that inv0ke c0mpensati0n 0f victims 0f miscarriages 0f
justice. c0nsequent1y, if the pers0ns wh0 have been wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted decide t0
pursue the payment 0f c0mpensati0n they w0u1d have t0 seek a remedy under t0rt 1aw
f0r p0ssib1e 1iabi1ity suing the pub1ic auth0rities.

f0r the wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted this new cha11enge is c0mp1ex because n0twithstanding
the fact that t0 achieve their g0a1 0f 0btaining c0mpensati0n t0rt 1aw represents a
1ega11y viab1e res0urce; t0 successfu11y 0btain a verdict c0nsistent with their interests
there is a 10t 0f w0rk t0 d0.

“the purp0se 0f the t0rt 1aw is t0 adjust these 10sses and t0 aff0rd c0mpensati0n f0r
injuries sustained by 0ne pers0n as the resu1t 0f the c0nduct 0f an0ther. such statement
0f the pr0b1em indicates that the 1aw 0f t0rts must c0nstant1y be in a state 0f f1ux,
since it must be ready t0 rec0gnize and c0nsider new 10sses arising in n0ve1 ways”.

16
research questi0ns

f0110wing questi0ns sha11 be discussed,

1. what is the biggest fact0r c0ntributing t0 wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns? what are

remedies f0r this pr0b1em?

2. what impact d0 wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns have 0n victims and their immediate

fami1y members?

3. h0w a state can und0 the harm caused due t0 wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n?

research 0bjectives

the 0bjective 0f this paper. is t0 deep1y ana1yze the,

i. the basic fact0rs which causes wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n.

ii. the impact 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns 0n victims and their immediate fami1y
members

iii. the r01e 0f state in und0 the harm caused due t0 wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n.

research significance

this paper sha11 shed s0me 1ight 0n wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n as h0w an inn0cent pers0n
due t0 1ack 0f res0urces 0r evidence g0t c0nvicted wr0ngfu11y. this paper sha11 he1p
the readers in better understanding 0f the wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n that h0w an inn0cent
pers0n wh0 c0nvicted wr0ngfu11y can bec0me a menta11y unstab1e pers0n 0r an
actua1 crimina1 pers0n. 0ne 0f the purp0se 0f judicature is t0 pr0vide the substantive
justice but s0metimes in d0ing s0 there happens the miscarriage 0f justice and
wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n is 0ne 0f th0se situati0ns which s0metime cause the miscarriage
0f justice by sentencing an inn0cent pers0n f0r an 0ffense he never c0nvicted, this pave
the way 0f him t0wards crime.

this paper sha11 he1p the readers t0 better understand these c0ncepts and h0w a state
can he1p different institutes 0r 0rgans f0r und0ing the harm caused t0 a pers0n wh0
spend s0me span 0f his preci0us 1ife behind the bars, with0ut d0ing any crime but 0n1y
due t0 1ack 0f res0urces.

17
research meth0d010gy

this secti0n pr0vides an 0verview 0f the meth0d010gy. it begins with a descripti0n 0f

the h0ckey termin010gy was defined, f0110wed by a discussi0n 0f the exp10rat0ry
study design. f0r the purp0se 0f this study, the term wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n is defined as a
case in which a g0vernment entity has determined that the 0rigina11y c0nvicted
individua1 factua11y did n0t c0mmit the crime. the term ex0nerati0n refers t0 the
pr0cess by which a g0vernment entity, by way 0f a pard0n 0r judicia1 0rder, c0ncedes
that a c0nvicted pers0n is indeed inn0cent. researchers c0nducted a review 0f kn0wn
cases, a survey 0f service pr0viders,2 and 11 in- depth case studies t0 ascertain
inf0rmati0n regarding the range and frequency 0f issues victims face as they pr0ceed
thr0ugh the ex0nerati0n pr0cess.

review 0f 1iterature

the eng1ish crimina1 justice system was regarded as virtua11y infa11ib1e unti1 the
emergence in the 1ate 1980s 0f high pr0fi1e miscarriages 0f justice such as the cases 0f
the birmingham six, the gui1df0rd f0ur and stefan kiszk0. miscarriages 0f justice –
whether by err0r 0r ma1feasance – have thus bec0me a rec0gnised feature 0f the
system, which the c0urt 0f appea1 and the crimina1 cases review c0mmissi0n seek t0
c0rrect. the reas0ns f0r miscarriages 0f justice are mu1tifari0us (wa1ker and starmer,
1999; huff and ki11ias, 2013; naught0n, 2013). s0me 0f the fact0rs which can
c0ntribute t0 the c0nvicti0n 0f an inn0cent pers0n inc1ude: c0nfirmat0ry bias in p01ice
and pr0secuti0n investigati0ns; n0n-disc10sure 0f excu1pat0ry evidence; fa1se
c0nfessi0ns; dish0nest 0r mistaken witnesses; inadequate 1ega1 defence; impr0per
interventi0ns 0r summing up by a judge; c0gnitive biases and prejudices 0f juries; and
the inf1uence 0f media rep0rts and p0pu1ist 0pini0n 0n the decisi0ns made by juries. in
a s0cia1 c1imate where it is be1ieved that certain crimes are rife and where there is a
m0ra1 and p01itica1 agenda t0 secure c0nvicti0n f0r them, the dangers 0f miscarriages
0f justice are higher.

it was in such c0nditi0ns 0f disquiet – indeed, in c0nditi0ns which c0nstitute ‘m0ra1

panics’ (c0hen, 1972; gar1and, 2005; cree et a1, 2015) – that a series 0f wr0ngfu1
arrests and pr0secuti0ns 0ccurred in the fina1 decades 0f the 1ast century in resp0nse t0

18
a11egati0ns 0f paed0phi1e rings and 0rganised chi1d sexua1 abuse. f0110wing simi1ar
scares in n0rth america and 0ther parts 0f the w0r1d, it became c0mm0n1y be1ieved
that satanic ritua1 abuse was 0ccurring in s0me c0mmunities and in day care nurseries.
n0tab1e examp1es 0f supp0sed satanic abuse emerged in the 0rkney is1ands and
n0ttingham, and it was 0n1y after many m0nths that it became c1ear that n0 such ritua1
abuse had taken p1ace (th0rpe et a1., 1990; c1yde, 1992; 1a f0ntaine, 1994) 11. an
examp1e 0f chimerica1 abuse at a nursery was the case 0f shie1dfie1d 0n tyneside
(r0zenberg, 2002).

fina11y, there was the c1eve1and scanda1, when a mis1eading diagn0stic test based 0n
s0ca11ed ana1 di1ati0n 1ed t0 the unjustified rem0va1 0f d0zens 0f chi1dren int0
10ca1 auth0rity care (but1er-s10ss, 1988). 0f particu1ar re1evance t0 the present study
are the investigati0ns int0 the abuse 0f chi1dren in care and residentia1 sch001s in
n0rth wa1es and n0rthern eng1and in the 1ate 1990s. after s0me f0rmer staff were
c0nvicted 0f n0n-recent 0ffences, there were widespread c1aims pub1ished in the media
that abuse in such settings had been systemic, the w0rk 0f ‘paed0phi1e rings’ that
s0metimes ‘farmed 0ut’ victims t0 0utsiders (sawyer, 2012; d0bs0n, 2012; t0zer, 2013).
acc0rding t0 webster (2005), between january 1998 and may 2001, 34 0f the 43 p01ice
f0rces in eng1and and wa1es undert00k investigati0ns 0f n0nrecent instituti0na1 chi1d
abuse. h0wever, n0 0rganised paed0phi1e rings in care h0mes were identified.

february 2000 saw the pub1icati0n 0f 10st in care, the rep0rt 0f the judicia1 inquiry 1ed
by sir r0na1d waterh0use int0 abuse in n0rth wa1es. 0n a bbc newsnight pr0gramme
that discussed the findings, sir wi11iam utting, the f0rmer her majesty’s chief inspect0r
0f s0cia1 w0rk, c0mmented: ‘it may be that inn0cent pe0p1e are being c0nvicted, but
we 0ught t0 be m0re w0rried ab0ut the gui1ty wh0 might get away’. this ba1efu1
remark imp1ied that the abuse 0f chi1dren, n0 matter h0w 10ng ag0, was such a seri0us
matter that it merited a reversa1 0f the 1ega1 princip1e 0f the presumpti0n 0f inn0cence
in 0rder t0 increase the pr0spects 0f securing c0nvicti0ns. in this first wave 0f hist0ric
abuse cases, s0me were pr0secuted but acquitted and 0thers m0unted successfu1
appea1s. the f00tba11 c1ub manager, david j0nes, wh0 had ear1ier been a residentia1
care w0rker 0n merseyside, was 0ne 0f th0se wh0 were tried but acquitted. in his
aut0bi0graphy he wr0te 0f the 1asting psych010gica1 damage 0f being pr0secuted f0r

19
such an 0ffence, even after the jury returned a verdict 0f n0t gui1ty: ‘what th0se wh0
s0ught t0 c0nvict me did was take away s0mething that i wi11 never get back; my
dignity.

the wh01e experience fe1t 1ike a dagger being c0ntinua11y stabbed thr0ugh my heart.
[…] what i can never c0rrect is the peri0d 0f my 1ife that was wrecked by the m0st
h0rrific a11egati0ns any 10ving father c0u1d p0ssib1y face.’ (j0nes, 2011, p.221) in the
m0nths he spent awaiting tria1, he had been suspended fr0m his p0siti0n at
s0uthampt0n fc, and feared he might never w0rk again. 0ther cases 0f staff members
and their fami1ies being traumatised by dawn raids, pr0tracted peri0ds 0n bai1, 0r
pr0secuti0ns and c0nvicti0ns which were 1ater quashed 0n appea1, were rep0rted by
j0urna1ists and researchers. figures 0btained fr0m the ass0ciati0n 0f chiefs 0f p01ice
sh0w that by may 2001 p01ice f0rces in eng1and and wa1es had received a11egati0ns
fr0m ab0ut 5,750 f0rmer residents 0f care h0mes.

acc0rding t0 webster (2005) at 1east 10,000 f0rmer residents 0f care h0mes had made
c0mp1aints by the end 0f 2004, with between 7,000 and 9,000 care w0rkers having had
accusati0ns made against them: ‘m0st 0f these care w0rkers have n0t been charged with
any 0ffence, but many … had their 1ives b1ighted by fa1se a11egati0ns. and in the 1ast
15 years, as many as a hundred may have been wr0ng1y c0nvicted.’ (webster 2005,
p.550, and fn. 605). s0me 0f the fami1ies affected by these cases c0ntacted their mps.
an a11-party par1iamentary gr0up f0r abuse investigati0ns was set up, 1ed by the mp
c1aire curtisth0mas. meanwhi1e, the h0use 0f c0mm0ns se1ect c0mmittee 0n h0me
affairs c0nducted an inquiry 0f its 0wn. its rep0rt, the c0nduct 0f investigati0ns int0
past cases 0f abuse in chi1dren’s h0mes (hasc, 2002), 100ked critica11y at the meth0ds
p01ice used in seeking c0rr0b0rati0n f0r victims’ c1aims – that 0f ‘traw1ing’ f0r
witnesses. it stated that this, and the c0nc0mitant re1iance 0n c0rr0b0rati0n by numbers
had 1ed t0 ‘a new genre 0f miscarriage 0f justice’ (para.2), adding: ‘set in the c0ntext 0f
a gr0wing c0mpensati0n cu1ture and a shift in the 1aw 0f “simi1ar fact” evidence, the
risks 0f effecting a miscarriage 0f justice in these cases are said t0 be unusua11y high’
(para.2).

‘‘traw1ing’ is n0t a technica1 term, rather it is a c0nvenient 1abe1 used t0 describe the
p01ice practice 0f making uns01icited appr0aches t0 f0rmer residents fr0m many 0f the

20
instituti0ns under investigati0n. in any investigati0n, inc1uding th0se int0 past
instituti0na1 abuse, the p01ice wi11 c0ntact pers0ns named by the c0mp1ainant in his
0r her statement 0f c0mp1aint. traw1ing, as we understand it, refers t0 the pr0cess when
the p01ice g0 0ne step further and c0ntact p0tentia1 witnesses wh0 have n0t been
named 0r even menti0ned. in a traw1, the p01ice wi11 c0ntact a11, 0r a pr0p0rti0n 0f,
th0se wh0 were resident at the instituti0n under investigati0n during the peri0d when
the abuse was a11eged t0 have 0ccurred.’ (hasc, 2002, para.12).

what is in effect the same meth0d is n0w usua11y termed ‘dip samp1ing’ by p01ice
services. whatever the n0menc1ature, the essence 0f the technique is t0 c0ntact f0rmer
residents and pupi1s 0f instituti0ns wh0 have n0t made sp0ntane0us c0mp1aints in the
h0pe 0f gathering further c0mp1aints, s0 enab1ing pr0secuti0ns based 0n
‘c0rr0b0rati0n by v01ume’ - the inc1usi0n 0f tw0 0r m0re unc0rr0b0rated c1aims 0f
separate incidents which c0unt as mutua11y c0rr0b0rative, acc0rding t0 the princip1es
0f ‘simi1ar fact evidence.’ the 1aw in this area has steadi1y ev01ved, and th0ugh it is
supp0sed t0 pr0tect the inn0cent against the intr0ducti0n 0f prejudicia1 testim0ny,
these safeguards have been weakened (webster, 2002). 0rigina11y, ‘simi1ar fact’
testim0nia1 evidence was permitted 0n1y if there were ‘striking simi1arities’ between
pr0vab1e facts. this was extended by a c0urt 0f appea1 ru1ing in 1946 t0 inc1ude
simi1ar a11egati0ns. tw0 further judgments by the h0use 0f 10rds in the ear1y 1990s
weakened the safeguards further. in 1991, in dpp v p, the c0urt rejected the requirement
that a11egati0ns, in 0rder t0 be admissib1e, sh0u1d be ‘striking1y simi1ar’. in 1994, in
dpp v h, it he1d that, in ru1ing 0n the admissibi1ity 0f a series 0f simi1ar a11egati0ns,
the judge sh0u1d genera11y assume that the a11egati0ns in questi0n were true (webster,
2002).

the timing 0f these judgments was significant, because p01ice services were then just
beginning t0 investigate c1aims 0f abuse in residentia1 sch001s and care h0mes. hence,
‘the new1y created weakness in the 1aw was a1m0st immediate1y seized 0n by p01ice
f0rces in 0rder t0 successfu11y push thr0ugh a number 0f pr0secuti0ns which c0u1d
never have been br0ught pri0r t0 the decisi0n in dpp v p’ (webster, 2002, p.5).
meanwhi1e, there was a1s0 widespread c0ntact between the p01ice and pers0na1 injury
s01icit0rs, gathering c1ients f0r 1arge-sca1e civi1 acti0ns against th0se a11eged1y

21
resp0nsib1e f0r abuse. these, it is argued, created 0pp0rtunities f0r the exchange 0f
descriptive detai1, p011inati0n 0f rum0urs and c0nfabu1ati0n 0f mem0ries (webster,
1998, 2005; ipcc, 2007; r0se, 2012, 2016, 2016 in press). s0me s01icit0rs even
advertised f0r supp0sed victims using the pris0ners’ newspaper, inside time (r0se,
2012). the risks here were se1f-evident. by definiti0n, many 0f th0se resp0nding t0 such
advertisements had been c0nvicted 0f crimes 0f dish0nesty. they were a1s0 1ike1y t0
c0me int0 c0ntact behind bars with 0thers wh0 had been in care and appr0ved sch001s,
creating a further danger 0f c011usi0n. in pris0n, it was a1s0 p0ssib1e that s0me
disadvantaged 0r vu1nerab1e pe0p1e wh0 were n0t m0tivated by ma1ice 0r greed were
err0ne0us1y persuaded that they had been victims 0f physica1 and sexua1 abuse (gunn,
2013).

fr0m his wea1th 0f experience defending such cases, the s01icit0r mark newby has
described the pattern whereby individua1 testim0ny can bec0me c0ntaminated: ‘after
the first a11egati0n the traw1 wi11 then c0mmence a1m0st unif0rm1y… the witnesses
wi11 find themse1ves app0inted a 1iais0n 0fficer wh0 wi11 a1s0 act as a c0nduit f0r
inf0rmati0n they sh0u1d n0t receive. m0st significant1y the evidence 0f 0ne
c0mp1ainant wi11 be intr0duced int0 the evidence 0f the next, either in a purp0sefu1
acti0n but m0st pr0bab1y by inn0cent c0ntaminati0n. think ab0ut it: if 0ne 0fficer is
t01d a sexua1 0ffence t00k p1ace in a certain way it is a1m0st human nature when he 0r
sees an0ther witness t0 enquire 0r direct the questi0ning t0 see if the same happened t0
this pers0n. the act 0f c0ntaminati0n has been c0mmitted and is then perpetuated as the
enquiry c0ntinues. [1ater, with0ut kn0wing h0w they ar0se, it is p0ssib1e f0r the
pr0secuti0n and] the judge t0 make th0se s0rt 0f c0mments we have a11 heard t0 the
jury, suggesting that it is imp1ausib1e that a11 c0u1d c0me up with a11egati0ns which
share the same features.’ (newby, 2012, p.5).

understanding h0w these injustices may 0ccur is imp0rtant t0 appreciating why the
same fact0rs may c0ntinue t0 p1ace m0re pe0p1e at risk 0f wr0ngfu1 arrests and
pr0secuti0ns (hmic, 2013; 1evitt, 2013b). the number 0f pe0p1e wh0 are fa1se1y
accused 0f these abh0rrent 0ffences expands c0nsiderab1y 0nce civi1 pr0ceedings are
taken int0 acc0unt. whi1e a pr0p0rti0n 0f th0se accused wh0se cases are dr0pped by
the p01ice 0r cps as ‘unf0unded’ 0r ‘unsubstantiated’ are 1ike1y t0 be gui1ty, it stands

22
t0 reas0n that a pr0p0rti0n were inn0cent a11 a10ng, and p0ssib1y the maj0rity 0f
them. n0nethe1ess, s0me wi11 be subject t0 ‘punishments’ in the civi1 justice system.

hence, in any c0nsiderati0n 0f the impact 0f fa1se accusati0ns, it is 0f critica1

imp0rtance t0 inc1ude civi1 cases, inv01ving discip1inary hearings 0r emp10yment
tribuna1s, which can resu1t in suspensi0n and dismissa1 fr0m w0rk and 0ther
significant harms, as the present study sh0ws. s0me 1ess0ns were 1earned fr0m the 1ate
twentieth century ‘m0ra1 panics’ 0ver satanic ritua1 abuse and 0verb10wn c1aims 0f
instituti0na1ised abuse in chi1dren’s care h0mes. the unnecessary arrests, pr0secuti0ns
and damage t0 fami1ies 1ed t0 rec0gniti0n 0f fa1se a11egati0ns 0f abuse as a distinct
categ0ry 0f miscarriages 0f justice. recent1y, h0wever, th0se 1ess0ns seem t0 have
been undermined by a new m0ra1 panic 0ver a11egati0ns 0f ‘vip’ and ‘ce1ebrity’
abuse. 0f particu1ar n0te is the metr0p01itan p01ice inquiry int0 c1aims 0f abuse by a
‘ring’ 0f paed0phi1es in par1iament, 0perati0n mid1and, st0ked by a series 0f
interviews by a man kn0wn as ‘nick’ 0n the exar0 news website, wide1y rep0rted by the
bbc. even after the metr0p01itan p01ice service admitted in 2015 that this had been
‘wr0ng’, its statement – which is sti11 avai1ab1e 0n its website – added: ‘0ur starting
p0int with a11egati0ns 0f chi1d sexua1 abuse is t0 be1ieve the victim unti1 we identify
reas0nab1e cause t0 be1ieve 0therwise.’ (peachey, 2015).

the inn0cence pr0ject (2019) rep0rts that 70% 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns are caused by
eyewitness misidentificati0n, 44% by inva1id f0rensics, 28% by fa1se c0nfessi0ns,
and 17% by p01ice inf0rmants. there are five issues that sh0u1d be ana1yzed in-
depth t0 better understand the causati0n 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns. first, jur0rs d0 n0t
have an understanding 0f h0w mem0ry w0rks and p1ace far t00 much credence 0n
eyewitness testim0ny. sec0nd, f0rensic science testim0ny by pr0secuti0n experts are
0ccasi0na11y inva1id due t0 a misunderstanding 0r misrepresentati0n 0f data. third,
interr0gat0rs c0ntaminate c0nfessi0ns in vari0us ways, such as pr0viding evidence t0
interviewees, which can induce an incriminating c0nfessi0n. f0urth, p01ice inf0rmants
can be incentivized t0 pr0vide testim0ny that incriminates the defendant. fifth,
g0vernment- app0inted defense c0unse1s are 0ften underpaid and underprepared t0
pr0per1y defend their c1ients. a1t0gether, the fact0rs that these the0ries describe
drastica11y increase the 0ccurrence 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns in the pakistan

23
eyewitness misidentificati0n

eyewitness misidentificati0n is the m0st frequent c0ntribut0r t0 wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n

cases. in the fa11 0f 2003 and ear1y winter 0f 2004, hart research w0rked t0gether
with att0rneys at the pub1ic defender service f0r the district 0f c01umbia and dr.
e1izabeth 10ftus t0 prepare a survey t0 test average jur0rs’ understanding 0f which
eyewitness testim0nies are m0re 0r 1ess re1iab1e than 0thers (schmeche1, 0’t001e,
easter1y, & 10ftus, 2006). it c0nsisted 0f twenty questi0ns regarding the jur0rs’
0pini0ns 0n eyewitness identificati0n, as we11 as their 0pini0ns 0n which fact0rs
make eyewitness testim0ny m0re 0r 1ess re1iab1e. in 1ate february 0f 2004, hart
research c0nducted the survey by ph0ne using rand0m1y ch0sen residentia1 ph0ne
numbers with a district 0f c01umbia area c0de, which u1timate1y resu1ted in 1,007
p0tentia1 jur0rs c0mp1eting the survey. the survey resu1ts suggest that jur0rs
genera11y d0 n0t understand h0w mem0ry w0rks 0r h0w certain fact0rs affect
mem0rizati0n (schmeche1 et a1., 2006).

these jur0rs were n0t aware 0f the se1ectivity 0f human mem0ry, 0r 0f h0w mem0ry
can be great1y a1tered by inf0rmati0n—it receives after the initia1 event due t0 its
rec0nstructive nature. mem0ries can a1s0 be a1tered during the questi0ning pr0cess,
when inf0rmati0n that has been st0red b1ends with what is pr0vided.

n0t 0n1y is the issue 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns by way 0f witness misidentificati0n

b0rn fr0m human err0r, but it is a110wed t0 pr0gress because 0f the system’s
hist0rica1 preference 0f eyewitness testim0ny and because 0f a 1ack 0f studies that
right1y discredit eyewitnesses with fa1se inf0rmati0n. the best s01uti0n t0 rectifying
these wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns is perhaps tripartite: a110wing expert testim0ny when the
0n1y evidence against the defendant is eyewitness testim0ny; impr0ving pr0cedures
f0r c011ecting eyewitness evidence; and pr0per1y educating the principa1 participants
in a tria1 ab0ut the effects 0f eyewitness fact0rs (wise, dauphinais, & safer, 2007).

f0r the first c0mp0nent, an expert witness w0u1d be asked t0 exp1ain t0 jur0rs h0w
mem0ry w0rks and what fact0rs may have affected the testim0ny’s re1iabi1ity. this
w0u1d 0ccur bef0re the eyewitness statement, s0 jur0rs d0 n0t interna1ize the
e1ements 0f the testim0ny bef0re c0nsidering its pr0bative va1ue. the sec0nd

24
c0mp0nent w0u1d rectify the three types 0f err0rs that p01ice 0fficers genera11y take
during pr0cedures f0r c011ecting eyewitness evidence: they d0 n0t 0btain much 0f the
inf0rmati0n that an eyewitness kn0ws ab0ut a crime; they c0ntaminate the eyewitness’
mem0ry 0f the crime; and they accede t0 the m0tivati0na1 bias that c0mes fr0m pr0-
pr0secuti0n cu1ture. wise et a1. (2007) state that psych010gists pr0p0se tw0 s01uti0ns
t0 impr0ve the pr0cedures 0f c011ecting eyewitness evidence. first, the p01ice 0fficer
wh0 c0nducts the eyewitness interview sh0u1d n0t kn0w the identity 0f the suspect t0
prevent unc0nsci0us 0r subc0nsci0us incriminati0n. sec0nd, defense att0rneys sh0u1d
be present during the interviews s0 members 0f the c0urt can be inf0rmed 0f any
impr0prieties that may have 0ccurred. the third c0mp0nent inv01ves educating the
principa1 participants in tria1s. in a survey 0f 160 judges, 57 1aw students, and 121
undergraduates, wise et a1. (2007) f0und that m0st pe0p1e in these gr0ups had 1imited
kn0w1edge 0f eyewitness fact0rs. the m0re kn0w1edgeab1e subjects 0f these studies
be1ieved that reducing eyewitness err0rs c0u1d inc1ude being 1ess wi11ing t0 c0nvict
defendants s01e1y 0n the basis 0f eyewitness testim0ny, giving m0re accurate
inf0rmati0n ab0ut wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns based 0n witness misidentificati0n rep0rting
greater skepticism ab0ut jur0rs’ kn0w1edge 0f eyewitness fact0rs, and bec0ming m0re
wi11ing t0 permit 1ega1 safeguards (wise et a1., 2007). educating the princip1e
participants in a tria1 c0u1d mean the preemptive screening 0f witness testim0ny f0r
its pr0bative va1ue bef0re it is presented t0 the jury.

inva1id f0rensic science

the sec0nd m0st frequent c0ntribut0r t0 wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns is perhaps unexpected

f0r s0me pe0p1e because science is 0ften f0und t0 be the m0st re1iab1e. that is why a
study was c0nducted t0 determine h0w frequent1y f0rensic evidence pr0vided at tria1
was 1ater pr0ven t0 be inva1id; it f0und that sixty percent 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n
cases were inf1uenced in part by a misstatement 0r misrepresentati0n 0f scientific
evidence by f0rensic experts (garrett & neufe1d, 2009). this evidence inc1uded
ser010gica1 ana1ysis, micr0sc0pic hair c0mparis0n, and the ana1ysis 0f bite marks,
sh0e print, s0i1, fiber, and fingerprints. in 137 ex0nerates’ tria1s, the tria1 transcripts
in which f0rensic scientists were ca11ed t0 testify by state 0r 10ca1 1aw enf0rcement
were 0btained and ana1yzed f0r misstatements 0r misrepresentati0ns 0f scientific

25
evidence. such misstatements 0r misrepresentati0ns inc1ude n0n-pr0bative evidence
being presented as pr0bative; excu1pat0ry evidence being disc0unted; inaccurate
frequencies 0r statistics being presented; statistics being pr0vided with0ut empirica1
supp0rt; n0n-numerica1 statements being pr0vided with0ut empirica1 supp0rt; and
c0nc1usi0ns that evidence 0riginated fr0m the defendant (garrett et a1., 2009). these
misrepresentati0ns are 1arge1y the fau1t 0f the scientist, wh0 sh0u1d n0t 0n1y ensure
that a11 statements are supp0rted with accurate data but a1s0 c1arify the pr0bative
va1ue 0f the evidence and av0id making c0nc1usi0ns 0n the 1ike1ih00d 0f a
defendant’s inv01vement.

fa1se c0nfessi0ns

the next m0st frequent c0ntribut0rs t0 wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns are fa1se c0nfessi0ns.
these are c0nfessi0ns wherein any e1ement is untrue, but usua11y end in the
interviewee fa1se1y identifying a suspect, c0nfessing t0 a crime, 0r pr0viding 0ther
inc0rrect inf0rmati0n. in c0ntrast t0 a m0re genera1 f0cus 0n psych010gica1
techniques that w0u1d cause a pers0n t0 give a fa1se c0nfessi0n, garrett’s (2010)
ana1ysis f0cuses 0n the substance 0f fa1se c0nfessi0ns t0 determine externa1 fact0rs.
typica11y, studies are c0nducted t0 determine psych010gica1 techniques that w0u1d
cause a pers0n t0 give a fa1se c0nfessi0n; h0wever, garrett’s (2010) ana1ysis f0cuses
0n the substance 0f fa1se c0nfessi0ns t0 determine externa1 fact0rs. f0rty dna
ex0nerees’ interr0gati0ns were studied and determined t0 have been c0nducted whi1e
in cust0dy: each de1ivered se1f-incriminating statements and admissi0ns 0f gui1t t0
p01ice. c0urts f0und these c0nfessi0ns admissib1e at tria1 and p0st-c0nvicti0n, s0 a11
were required t0 seek p0st-c0nvicti0n dna testing (garrett, 2010). pretria1 materia1s,
tria1 materia1s, and c0nfessi0ns were c011ected and the substance 0f the c0ntent was
assessed. this brings int0 questi0n the c0ntaminati0n 0f interr0gati0ns by p01ice.

p01ice inf0rmants

p01ice inf0rmants a1s0 c0ntribute t0 wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns. typica11y, p01ice

inf0rmants are seen as crimina1s wh0 are wi11ing t0 d0 whatever necessary t0 stay
0ut 0f pris0n, and 0ften they have n0 qua1m with fa1sifying testim0ny t0 make a dea1
(th0mps0n, 2012). this c0mm0n 0ccurrence makes it difficu1t f0r p01ice t0 reach 0ut

26
t0 individua1s wh0 might have accurate inf0rmati0n but are t00 afraid t0 c0me
f0rward. th0mps0n (2012) pr0p0ses that the c0urts take a m0re active r01e in
screening a11 inc0ming evidence t0 av0id fa1se testim0ny based 0n his ana1ysis 0f
p01ice inf0rmants as we11 as heavy-handed tactics used by the p01ice, such as
pressure, tricks, 1ies, 0r fear. f0r th0se inf0rmants wh0 have n0t yet entered the
crimina1 justice system, p01ice threaten incarcerati0n 0r dep0rtati0n (th0mps0n,
2012). these meth0ds are high1y suggestive, c0ercive, and deceptive. inf0rmants 0f
this nature are m0re vu1nerab1e, and p01ice purp0sefu11y manipu1ate this
vu1nerabi1ity t0 derive inf0rmati0n. th0mps0n (2012) asserts that jur0rs are
genera11y unab1e t0 discern the re1iabi1ity 0f p01ice inf0rmants because they d0 n0t
have an appreciati0n 0f h0w enticing g0vernment incentives are 0r the c0erci0n that
w0u1d cause inf0rmants t0 1ie. it is p0ssib1e that even pr0secut0rs are unaware 0f a
p01ice inf0rmant’s witness hist0ry 0r 0f rewards they may have received f0r past
testim0ny.

different 0rganizati0ns rec0mmend increasing educati0n and rec0rds regarding p01ice

inf0rmants. the justice pr0ject suggests the jury be administered specia1 instructi0ns
0n the unre1iabi1ity 0f jai1h0use inf0rmants (th0mps0n, 2012). the

center 0n wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns at n0rthwestern university sch001 0f 1aw

rec0mmends that a11 incarcerated p01ice inf0rmants be wired t0 rec0rd statements
made by suspects, which w0u1d e1iminate the e1ement 0f hearsay (th0mps0n, 2012).
additi0na11y, a11 ph0t0graphic 1ineups sh0u1d be inc1uded in disc0very f0r the
defense.

g0vernment misc0nduct

an0ther c0ntribut0r t0 wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns is g0vernment misc0nduct. this can be

defined as 0ver1y suggestive witness c0aching, 0ffering incendiary and inappr0priate
c10sing arguments, 0r fai1ing t0 disc10se critica1 evidence t0 the defense (g0u1d &
1e0, 2010). a1th0ugh research in this area is 1imited, main1y because the g0vernment
refuses t0 supp1y researchers with data 0n misc0nduct, th0ugh there was 0ne artic1e
that c0u1d be discriminated fr0m the 0thers. h0wever brief1y, the artic1e d0es supp0rt
the c1aim that this 0ccurs and asks pr0fessi0na1s t0 1earn fr0m a century 0f mistakes

27
made in wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n cases by enf0rcing p01icies that w0u1d prevent them
fr0m 0ccurring, such as e1ectr0nica11y rec0rded interr0gati0ns and d0ub1e-b1ind
eyewitness identificati0n pr0cedures (g0u1d & 1e0, 2010). the inn0cence c0mmissi0n
f0r virginia finds that impr0ving this fact0r 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns must be a
h01istic pr0cess with input fr0m experts and stakeh01ders at every step 0f the pr0cess.
p01itica1 scientist j0hn kingd0n exp1ains that p01icy change wi11 0n1y 0ccur if an
act0r, an initiative, and a p01icy wind0w a11 c0nverge at the same time (g0u1d & 1e0,
2010). awareness 0f the r01e 0f g0vernment misc0nduct in wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns
wi11 make the 0vera11 justice system m0re equitab1e.

insufficient 1awyering

the 1ast 0f the main c0ntribut0rs t0 wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns is current1y inevitab1e:

insufficient 1awyering. f0rcing new and inexperienced defense c0unse1 t0 represent
individua1s with p0tentia11y 1arge cases presents many issues, such as e1evated
anxiety and an unfami1iarity with the inner w0rkings and nuances 0f a tria1 (br0wn,
2005). these issues make it difficu1t f0r inn0cent defendants t0 receive appr0priate
verdicts and thus increase fa1se c0nvicti0n rates.

0ther e1ements 0f insufficient 1awyering inc1ude fai1ures in fact-finding; the

structures and 1imits 0f pr0secut0rs’ and investigat0rs’ r01es; the 1imited capacity 0f
defense att0rneys; the effects 0f pr0secut0ria1 and investigative res0urce c0nstraints;
the ineffectiveness 0f pr0cedura1 ru1es at tria1; 1egitimacy, c0nf1ict res01uti0n, and
err0r-0bscuring pr0cesses; and p1ea bargaining and truth-0bscuring incentives. br0wn
(2005) suggests structuring c0sts t0 impr0ve accuracy in verdicts. he asserts that better
crime 1ab funding c0u1d effective1y functi0n as a diminished defense c0unse1. 0ther
fact0rs, such as expanded and mandat0ry evidence disc10sure practices, judicia1
dep0siti0ns and access t0 evidence fi1es, and the expansi0n 0f disc0very, w0u1d a1s0
c0ntribute t0 reducing issues with insufficient 1awyering.

p0st-c0nvicti0n dna testing

f0r th0se wh0 have a1ready been wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted, there is h0pe. it begins with
the c0urts being 0pen t0 p0st- c0nvicti0n dna testing, which inc1udes ana1ysis 0f
aged, degraded, 1imited, 0r 0therwise c0mpr0mised bi010gica1 evidence. these

28
samp1es c0u1d n0t previ0us1y be ana1yzed because dna techn010gy had 10w
specificity and sensitivity. there is n0w a p0st-c0nvicti0n dna statute in every state, s0
any c0nvicted pers0n with the c0rrect paperw0rk can have their dna tested f0r
inc0nsistencies. h0wever, the paperw0rk varies by state, s0 a c0nvicted pers0n sh0u1d
research whether they are c0nsidered t0 be qua1ified in their state.

in ca1if0rnia, the current statue dec1ares that any pers0n wh0 was c0nvicted 0f a
fe10ny may make a written m0ti0n f0r p0st-c0nvicti0n dna testing (m0ti0n f0r dna
testing 0f 2015). a c0nvicted pers0n may request the app0intment 0f pub1ic c0unse1 in
0rder t0 prepare this m0ti0n. the c0urt wi11 then request that c0pies 0f dna 1ab
rep0rts, n0tes, evidence 10gs and their chains 0f cust0dy, and rec0rds 0f evidence
10cati0n 0r destructi0n be made avai1ab1e t0 the defendant. the m0ti0n f0r dna testing
wi11 be granted as 10ng as the f0110wing is determined: the evidence is avai1ab1e
and in a c0nditi0n that w0u1d permit dna testing; the evidence in questi0n has been
subject t0 a chain 0f cust0dy that estab1ishes it has n0t been a1tered in any way; the
identity 0f the perpetrat0r 0f the crime is a significant issue in the case; the c0nvicted
pers0n dem0nstrates that the dna testing w0u1d be re1evant t0 the issue 0f identity; the
requested dna testing resu1ts w0u1d raise a reas0nab1e pr0babi1ity that the c0nvicted
pers0n’s verdict 0r sentence w0u1d have been m0re fav0rab1e if the testing resu1ts
had been avai1ab1e at the time 0f the c0nvicti0n; the evidence had either n0t been
tested previ0us1y 0r this requested testing w0u1d pr0vide resu1ts that have a
reas0nab1e pr0babi1ity 0f c0ntradicting past resu1ts; the requested testing emp10ys a
meth0d genera11y accepted within the scientific c0mmunity; and the m0ti0n is n0t
made s01e1y f0r the purp0se 0f de1ay (m0ti0n f0r dna testing 0f 2015).

these deve10pments sh0w pr0gress since 2007, when the pakistan a110wed f0r high1y
c0nditi0na1 p0st-c0nvicti0n dna testing in a11 except eight states (steinback, 2007). this
artic1e ana1yzes the reas0ning behind the 1ack 0f pr0gressi0n in these states and
discusses steps that must be taken in 0rder t0 bring them up t0 standard.

29
 r01e 0f state in und0 the harm caused due t0 wr0ngfu1
c0nvicti0n
wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n is a f0rm 0f miscarriage 0f justice. the 0ccurrence 0f wr0ngfu1
c0nvicti0n can be caused due t0 many different gr0unds 1ike mistaken identificati0n,
fa1se c0nfessi0n, inva1idated f0rensic science resu1ts 0r 0fficia1 misc0nduct.

an inn0cent serving a punishment f0r a crime he never c0mmitted, impacting b0th his
physica1 and menta1 hea1th in the pr0cess. the nightmare inc1udes depriving fr0m
fami1y members and re1atives f0r years, n0t being ab1e t0 estab1ish 0nese1f
pr0fessi0na11y; but after pr0ving their inn0cence, n0 c0mpensati0n 0r insurance 0r
hea1th services 0r any kind 0f benefits t0 be respected as a pers0n.

artic1e 14 c1ause (6) 0f the internati0na1 c0venant 0n civi1 and p01itica1 rights
0b1iges c0untries t0 have statut0ry 1aws f0r granting reimbursement and
reestab1ishment f0r s0me0ne wh0 has been wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted by the state. this
pr0visi0n, which has been imp1emented by a11 0ther c0untries ar0und the w0r1d but
n0t by pakistan, which is 0therwise a party t0 the treaty – is based 0n a basic c0ncept: if
the state has wr0ng1y taken away the 1ife 0r 1iberty 0f an individua1 in carrying 0ut
s0vereign functi0ns, it must remedy it. h0wever, the idea 0f remedy exhibits an
intricate, prudentia1 c0ncern when cha11enged with artic1e 21 0f the c0nstituti0n 0f
pakistan – the right t0 1ife and 1iberty. f0r the state, wh0se existence is t0 guarantee the
freed0m 0f 1ife and 1iberty 0f its citizens, cann0t return un1ess it has been wr0ngfu11y
e1iminated? whereas the 1awfu1 taking away 0f 1ife is n0t s0 preva1ent in pakistan, the
wr0ngfu1 denia1 0f the right t0 freed0m is pervasive.

the 1aw c0mmissi0n 0f pakistan advised the pr0secuti0n 0f misbehaving g0vernment

0fficia1s f0und t0 have wr0ngfu11y pr0secuted an inn0cent citizen sh0rt1y after the
re1ease 0f its 277th rep0rt. m0st imp0rtant1y, it a1s0 presented a structure f0r the
ca1cu1ati0n 0f c0mpensati0n and the estimati0n 0f the m0netary va1ue 0f the 10ss t0 a
citizen in the event 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n. at present, given the 1ega1 statutes f0r
remunerati0n in pakistan, which are main1y 1imited t0 cases 0f un1awfu1 c0nfinement,
this system is n0t 0rganized.

30
the 1icitness 0f the crimina1 justice system in pakistan is 1arge1y based up0n its
effectiveness and fairness. we can judge its effectiveness by its abi1ity t0 detect and
investigate crimes, identify the 0ffenders and dispense adequate sancti0ns. its fairness
depends 0n its precisi0n and the eff0rts it makes t0 c0nduct a fair tria1, t0 pr0vide
effective 1ega1 representati0n and pr0tecti0n t0 the accused at a11 p0ints and its abi1ity
t0 c0nvict the gui1ty and t0 c1ear the inn0cent. it is an estab1ished princip1e that grave
injustice and c0nsequentia1 s0cia1 injury is caused when the 1aw turns up0n itse1f and
c0nvicts an inn0cent pers0n.

the term ‘wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n’ refers t0 the c0nvicti0n 0f inn0cent pe0p1e due t0 the
miscarriage 0f justice. they are such 0rganizati0na1 accidents where sma11 mistakes
c0mbine and create disasters. they are an0ma1ies t0 an 0therwise efficient crimina1
justice mechanism and can have immeasurab1e c0nsequences f0r ex0nerates. in a
wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n, an inn0cent gets punished f0r an 0ffence which he/she did n0t
c0mmit and the rea1 perpetrat0r r0ams sc0t-free. at times a wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n is n0t
0verturned unti1 after the inn0cent pers0n has been executed. a11 this 1eads t0 the
dec1ine 0f pub1ic c0nfidence in the justice system. in 0ur crimina1 justice system, a
victim 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n suffers in tw0 ways. first1y, it is psych010gica1 since he
suffers fr0m incarcerati0n f0r a crime he didn’t c0mmit. sec0nd1y, he is subjected t0
1ife10ng s0cia1 10athing and c0ndemnati0n due t0 the ineptitude 0f the crimina1
justice system.

even in the pakistan c0ntext, there is a heavy trend 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n 0r

pr0secuti0n, with numer0us c0nvicti0ns 0verturned during appea1 due t0 1ack 0f
sufficient evidence, 0r m0tive, 0r p1ain ma1ice. under tria1 pris0ners in pakistan
am0unting t0 a wh0pping 69% 0f the pris0n 0ccupancy can be c1assified int0 tw0
categ0ries, th0se detained during the investigati0n and th0se wh0 were c0nvicted but
have appea1ed.

wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted refers t0 the sec0nd categ0ry 0f under tria1 pris0ners. the f0rmer
categ0ry may a1s0 have th0se wh0 are being ma1ici0us1y pr0secuted, but they are n0t
within the sc0pe 0f this artic1e. these accused individua1s 10se va1uab1e years 0f their
1ife due t0 tedi0us and c0mp1ex tria1 pr0cedures and even p0st acquitta1, there 1acks a
pr0per mechanism which grants them c0mpensati0n f0r their irreparab1e 10ss. this is a

31
human rights vi01ati0n, and a vi01ati0n 0f the fundamenta1 right 0f 1ife, pers0na1
1iberty u/a 21 0f the pakistan c0nstituti0n.

due t0 the absence 0f a specific 1ega1 regime 0n this, the pakistan judiciary has, 0ver
the years framed the remedy and c0mpensati0n f0r th0se wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted. the
first such instance which t00k pr0minence was that 0f the shah case where the
petiti0ner was un1awfu11y detained as an undertria1 pris0ner f0r 14 years wh0 fi1ed a
habeas c0rpus writ u/a 32 bef0re the sci. the supreme c0urt he1d that art. 32
enc0mpasses the p0wer 0f the c0urt t0 grant c0mpensati0n in such cases. in vari0us
cases inv01ving such c0nvicti0n, the c0urt has rec0gnized the t0rti0us acti0n 0f the
state and granted c0mpensati0n f0r the wr0ng d0ne.

the c0urt has, h0wever, n0t rec0gnized a universa1 right t0 c0mpensati0n; in

the akshardham terr0r case the c0urt stated that acquitta1 did n0t aut0matica11y give a
right t0 c0mpensati0n, and a110wing the same w0u1d am0unt t0 “a danger0us
precedent”. even in the g0ku1 chat b0mbing case, despite the accused spending 10 years
in jai1, n0 acti0n was taken against the investigat0rs and neither was any c0mpensati0n
granted. in 2017, the 1ah0re high c0urt, rec0gnizing the need f0r a 1egis1ative
framew0rk t0 rectify wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns, asked the 1aw c0mmissi0n t0 th0r0ugh1y
scrutinize the issue and rec0mmend a framew0rk t0 the state.

reas0ns behind wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n

every wr0ng happens because 0f a reas0n. the reas0ns behind wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n are
as f0110ws:-

mistaken identificati0n: - eyewitnesses p1ay a crucia1 r01e in the c0urse 0f crimina1

pr0ceeding, especia11y at investigati0n and tria1. eyewitness has t0 remember every
detai1 0f the suspect. the pr0cess 0f identificati0n is either thr0ugh ph0t0 identificati0n
0r by suspect 1ine up. it is a mem0ry task and an average human brain can rec0gnize
5000 faces. but c0nsidering the surr0unding where the eyewitness saw the suspect and
trauma fr0m the incident, it can 1ead t0 mistaken identificati0n. the wr0ngfu1
c0nvicti0n 0ccurs when the mistaken identity is given m0re imp0rtance than any 0ther
f0rensic evidence 1ike dna.

32
fa1se c0nfessi0n: - c0nfessi0n statement is pr0vided by the suspect in which he admits
t0 the crime being c0mmitted by him. n0w the questi0n is why w0u1d an inn0cent
pers0n c0nfess t0 a crime he didn’t c0mmit? the answer t0 the questi0n is misbehaving
0fficers at the time 0f interr0gati0n 0f a suspect. it p1ays a psych010gica1 impact 0n a
suspect, depriving him 0f f00d and water at the time 0f interr0gati0n 0r the fact0r that
the suspect is s1eep deprived by the 10ng time durati0n 0f the interr0gati0n. s0metimes
the 0fficers use third degree meth0ds t0 gain c0nfessi0n. the statement s0metimes
d0esn’t c011ab0rate with f0rensic evidence 1ike b100d spatter 0r murder weap0n yet
the inn0cent gets c0nvicted due t0 their admissi0n 0f the 0ffence.

f0rensic science pr0b1ems: - f0rensic science is a va1uab1e res0urce, but 0ften

f0rensic practices uti1ize pr0cedures and appr0aches that have n0t been accepted by the
scientific c0mmunity. unpr0ven f0rensic science, such as hair and fiber c0mparis0n and
bite-mark examinati0n, p1ayed a part in a1m0st 50% 0f sentences subsequent1y
reversed with the use 0f dna testing, sh0wing that higher requirements f0r f0rensic
pr00f needed t0 be set at c0urt.

0fficia1 misc0nduct:- a1th0ugh m0st 1ega1 0fficers and pr0secut0rs are sincere, with
the best intenti0n 0f pr0tecting s0ciety, s0metimes the 0b1igati0n 0f 0btaining
c0nvicti0ns may 1ead p01ice and pr0secut0rs t0 behave impr0per1y, unfair1y, 0r
un1awfu11y. such abuse can inc1ude p0ssessi0n 0f 0r deve10pment 0f evidence,
investigat0r’s c0ercive questi0ning, 0r pr0v0cative techniques f0r extracting an identity
fr0m p01ice. f0r high-pr0fi1e cases with a substantia1 am0unt 0f news attenti0n, p01ice
and pr0secuti0n c0rrupti0n bec0mes m0re 1ike1y because 1aw enf0rcement is under
scrutiny t0 apprehend a suspect.

h0w state und0 the harm

there aren't any c0mpensati0n schemes 0r 1ega1 mechanisms f0r the state t0 be
punished f0r its wr0ngd0ing. there are n0 specific guide1ines t0 pr0vide re1ief t0 the
victims 0f miscarriage 0f justice. there are numer0us 0pini0ns, studies and statements
0n them but the 1ega1 b00ks have n0t inc1uded a simp1e and e1ucidated c1ause.

33
a study 0f the current regu1ati0ns revea1s that three categ0ries 0f redresses are
judicia11y re1iant 0n the unfair pursuit 0f justice. th0se c0mprise pub1ic 1aw remedies,
private 1aw remedies and crimina1 1aw remedies.

private 1aw remedy: - private 1aw redress f0r i11ega1 acti0ns by state 0fficia1s 0ccurs
in the c0ntext 0f crimina1 acti0n against the state and its m0netary damages 0fficia1s.
acc0rding1y, the pakistan g0vernment may be pr0secuted in its name in c0mp1iance
with secti0n 300 0f the c0nstituti0n. the c0urt in state 0f punjab he1d that it is a kind 0f
ma1ici0us pr0secuti0n in crimina1 pr0ceedings instituted by the state t0 assau1t him
and that the state is 1iab1e t0 pay c0mpensati0n t0 the victim.

crimina1 1aw remedy: - the crimes c0mmitted by pub1ic 0fficia1s are discussed in
chapter ix 0f the pakistan pena1 c0de. this a1s0 addresses 0ffences that are n0t
c0mmitted by pub1ic servants but c0nnected t0 them. chapter xi a1s0 addresses the
issue 0f fa1se evidence and crime against pub1ic justice and exp1ains the perjury. it
a1s0 punishes any case in which the pr0secuting agency, such as p01ice 0fficers and the
pr0secut0r, has tampered with the investigati0n, tria1 and 0ther pr0ceedings. in the case
0f state, he1d that p01ice 0fficer needed t0 be punished because 0f the inappr0priate
interr0gati0n tactics used by them, that 1ed t0 an err0r in the assumpti0n 0f gui1t and
the entire situati0n went t0 cha0s.

wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n: a vi01ati0n 0f human rights

wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns are a vi01ati0n 0f basic human rights. artic1e 14 0f the

internati0na1 c0venant 0n civi1 and p01itica1 rights (iccpr) e1ab0rates 0n it. it imp0ses
a duty 0n the state t0 adequate1y c0mpensate the pers0n wh0 has suffered punishment
as a resu1t 0f such c0nvicti0n.

artic1e 14(6) 0f the iccpr dec1ares that if a pers0n by a fina1 decisi0n is c0nvicted 0f a
crimina1 0ffence and subsequent1y, it is f0und that it was a wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n. then
the state has t0 c0mpensate the pers0n wh0 has suffered the punishment due t0 such
c0nvicti0n acc0rding t0 1aw. many states except pakistan have amended their 1aws
after f0110wing the ab0ve guide1ines. wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns are a1s0 vi01ative 0f
artic1es 21 and 22 0f the c0nstituti0n. artic1e 21 is there t0 prevent encr0achment 0f a
human being’s 1ife 0r pers0na1 1iberty except acc0rding t0 the pr0visi0ns 0f 1aw.

34
artic1e 21 c0mes t0 rescue when a pers0n is deprived 0f his pers0na1 1ife and 1iberty
by the state as defined in artic1e 12 0f the c0nstituti0n. in maneka gandhi v u0i the
supreme c0urt gave a new depth t0 artic1e 21. the c0urt he1d that this right is n0t
mere1y a physica1 0ne but a1s0 inc1udes within its ambit the right t0 1ive with human
dignity, free fr0m exp10itati0n.

artic1e 22 pr0tects a pers0n fr0m i11ega1 arrest and detenti0n in certain cases. c1ause 2
0f artic1e 22 makes it mandat0ry t0 pr0duce an arrested and detained pers0n bef0re the
c0ncerned magistrate within 24 h0urs. c1ause 4 says that a pers0n cann0t be kept in
cust0dy f0r m0re than 3 m0nths with0ut the permissi0n 0f the c0ncerned auth0rities.
c1ause 5 says that a pers0n wh0 has been arrested must be made aware 0f the gr0unds
and be a110wed t0 seek adequate 1ega1 representati0n.

hardships faced by under tria1 pris0ners

in pakistann crimina1 jurisprudence, an accused is presumed t0 be inn0cent unti1

pr0ven gui1ty. t. but the situati0n f0r undertria1s is very pecu1iar, they are 0ften
detained in jai1s f0r years 0n1y t0 kn0w 1ater that they are inn0cent. they are put
thr0ugh physica1 and menta1 t0rture during their detenti0n peri0d and exp0sed t0
inhuman 1iving c0nditi0ns. in a fema1e pris0n in raipur, chhattisgarh the pris0ners were
kept with0ut f00d and water f0r tw0 c0nsecutive days. the sick inmates were neither
attended by any d0ct0rs n0r were a110wed t0 meet 0r speak t0 their fami1ies. the jai1
had inmates’ way bey0nd its capacity and there were n0 guards t0 esc0rt the undertria1s
t0 the c0urts resu1ting in ex0rbitant de1ays in sett1ing their cases. the p00r inmates
were n0t pr0vided 0r made kn0wn ab0ut the 1ega1 aid faci1ities.

the undertria1s 0ften 10se ties with their friends and fami1y because s0ciety attaches a
s0cia1 stigma t0 them as individua1s and c0mmunity members. they are 1abe11ed as
crimina1s with0ut any fau1t 0f theirs. time and again their fami1ies are a1s0 disgraced
and humi1iated. even after they are dec1ared n0t- gui1ty by the c0urt their
emp10yabi1ity is severe1y je0pardised. what can be m0re unp1easant than staying in a
jai1 estranged fr0m fami1ies, friends, the 0uter w0r1d and s0ciety? being detached fr0m
fami1y and s0ciety damages the we11-being and menta1 hea1th 0f the undertria1s. 0n
t0p 0f that pr0cedura1 de1ays deve10p a pr010nged sense 0f h0pe1essness and

35
he1p1essness in the undertria1 pris0ners. a11 these 0ften 1ead t0 severe menta1 hea1th
pr0b1ems 1ike stress, anxiety and depressi0n.

acc0rding t0 the pris0n statistics pakistan, 2019 rep0rt by the nati0na1 crime rec0rds
bureau (ncrb), pakistan’s pris0ns are 0vercr0wded with an 0ccupancy rati0 0f 14%
m0re than the capacity. 0vercr0wding here means m0re inmates than the capacity 0r the
sancti0ned strength 0f the jai1. it is the biggest pr0b1em faced by the inmates current1y.
in the 1ast few years, there has been an en0rm0us increase in the p0pu1ati0n 0f the
pris0ns p0sing a 10t 0f cha11enges bef0re the pris0n administrati0n 1ike maintaining
the safety and security 0f the inmates, hygiene issues, c0ntr011ing the spread 0f
diseases am0ng the inmates etc. states such as uttar pradesh (167.99%), uttarakhand
(159.0%), megha1aya (157.4%), maharashtra (152.7%) and chhattisgarh (150.1%) have
rep0rted the highest 0vercr0wding rate. 100king at the ab0ve scenari0 it is
quintessentia1 t0 pr0vide reas0nab1e space and faci1ities in jai1s.

0nus 0n the state t0 und0 the harm

despite such c0mprehensive rec0mmendati0ns, c0up1ed with an 0b1igati0n 0n the state

t0 c0nfirm with the iccpr, there has been 1itt1e t0 n0 rec0urse taken 0n this issue. the
unhrc, in 2007 whi1e discussing miscarriage 0f justice under the iccpr high1ighted that
states must 1egis1ate a framew0rk t0 ensure c0mpensati0n t0 th0se wh0 are victims 0f
a miscarriage 0f justice. in 2018, the pr0tecti0n 0f rights 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicts was
intr0duced in the 10k sabha but it has sti11 n0t seen the 1ight 0f the day. the state
pr0secutes the accused in crimina1 cases, as a crime is c0nsidered as an 0ffense against
s0ciety.

theref0re, the resp0nsibi1ity 0f a wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n a1s0 1ies in the state. there are
numer0us instances 0f misc0nduct 0n part 0f the investigative team, the p01ice,
theref0re the state must rectify its mistakes. further, the state has t0 guard and pr0tect
the fundamenta1 right t0 1iberty and 1ife 0f its subjects as we11, which is infringed
when an inn0cent pers0n is wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted. the 0nus 0f rectifying this mistake
and intr0ducing a 1egis1ative framew0rk n0t just t0 pr0tects the right 0f th0se
wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted but a1s0 t0 prevent wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns.

36
further, what is a1arming is the fact that m0re 0ften than n0t, min0rities are targeted and
subjects 0f wr0ngfu1 pr0secuti0n. acc0rding t0 the ncrb data re1eased in 2015, m0re
than 55% 0f the undertria1 pris0ners c0nstitute da1it, members 0f the backward
c1asses, and mus1ims.

wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns 0f mus1ims are painfu11y c0mm0n under the tada (terr0rist and
disruptive activities (preventi0n) act, 1987) and uapa (un1awfu1 activities (preventi0n)
act, 1967). in cases 0f terr0rism and nati0na1 security which hints t0 a pattern 0f
prejudice driving the pr0secuti0n charges, meth0d 0f investigati0n, a11 0f which fai1s
t0 h01d when put t0 the test 0f the judicia1 system. it is theref0re high1y necessary that
min0rities are pr0tected fr0m ma1ici0us pr0secuti0n and spending years in jai1 because
0f the prejudice and substandard investigati0n. p01itica1 pressure is a1s0 an0ther
c0mm0n cause 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n, in high pr0fi1e cases 0r cases 0f c0mmuna1
c010r, p01ice are under immense pressure t0 nab crimina1s in a sh0rt am0unt 0f time
which a1s0 resu1ts in numer0us pr0cedura1 fau1ts which u1timate1y resu1ts in the
incarcerati0n 0f inn0cents whi1e the actua1 0ffenders remain sc0t-free.

as rightfu11y p0inted 0ut by the 1aw c0mmissi0n rep0rt, centra1 and state g0vernments
must address this c0mm0n yet unf0rtunate miscarriage 0f justice. c1aims 0f wr0ngfu1
pr0secuti0n must a11 be speedi1y addressed and du1y c0mpensated f0r their 10ss.
whi1e c0mpensati0n is the primary c0ncern, the f0cus must a1s0 be given t0 prevent
wr0ngfu1 pr0secuti0n. there is a need t0 ref0rm the investigative ski11s within the
pakistann 1aw enf0rcement and this is n0 new news. 1ack 0f evidence is 0ne 0f the
c0mm0n gr0unds 0f acquitta1, even where the accused is the 0ffender. it is hence
warranted that the g0vernment addresses the sh0rtc0mings 0f the crimina1 investigati0n
system 0f the c0untry.

internati0na1 stance 0n wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n and its aftermath

the iccpr cast an 0b1igati0n 0n the nati0ns wh0 have ratified it t0 meet their 0b1igati0ns
arising fr0m artic1e 14(6), 0n the miscarriage 0f justice. many c0untries have, either by
amending their existing 1egis1ative texts 0r by f0rmu1ating specia1 1egis1ati0ns have
met their 0b1igati0ns t0 ensure de1ivery 0f c0mpensati0n t0 th0se wr0nged, which
estab1ishes the resp0nsibi1ity t0 rehabi1itate and c0mpensate. examining the

37
framew0rk 0f germany, a party t0 the iccpr has intr0duced a c0ncept ca11ed “0fficia1
1iabi1ity”, assigning 1iabi1ity t0 the state, and making it resp0nsib1e t0 c0mpensate.
artic1e 34 0f the german c0nstituti0n e1ab0rates 0n this 1iabi1ity and acts as the
primary s0urce 0f 1aw in this regard.

further, the c0untry 1egis1ated the 1aw 0n c0mpensati0n f0r crimina1 pr0secuti0n
pr0ceedings in 1971 which detai1s the regime f0r c0mpensati0n f0r wr0ngfu1 c0nvicts.
further, the c0untry a1s0 has a 1ega1 framew0rk, within the 1aw 0n c0mpensati0n f0r
1aw enf0rcement measures, which dea1s with undertria1 pris0ners and c0mpensati0n
a110tted t0 them. the c0mprehensive and th0r0ugh framew0rk 0f germany a1s0 1ays
d0wn pr0visi0ns f0r c0mpensati0n c1aims under b0th its civi1 c0de and crimina1 c0de.
[28] the 0fficia1 is himse1f 1iab1e here, with the resp0nsibi1ity 0f the state being an
indirect 1iabi1ity.

case studies 0n wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns

m0ntesquieu, a french 1ega1 jurist and phi10s0pher, 0nce wr0te in the spirit 0f
the 1aws: “there is n0 greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the
shie1d 0f the 1aw and in the name 0f justice.” in pakistan, f0r the victims 0f
wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns, n0thing w0u1d ring m0re true.

in the we11-kn0wn mazhar hussain case, a man fa1se1y c0nvicted f0r murder spent 13
years 0n death r0w bef0re he was acquitted by the supreme c0urt f0r a11 charges.
unf0rtunate1y, he was acquitted tw0 years after he had a1ready died in jai1. in 2017, a
man fa1se1y accused in a b1asphemy case was acquitted fr0m a 1ife sentence by the
supreme c0urt after spending nine years in jai1. when the supreme c0urt re1eased him,
he was 1et g0 with a mere ap010gy. m0st recent1y, in 2018, the supreme c0urt
acquitted a 21-year-01d man wh0 was fa1se1y c0nvicted f0r trafficking drugs when he
was just a 10-year-01d b0y. after spending m0re than a decade in terrib1e pris0n
c0nditi0ns, he was re1eased — by then fata11y aff1icted with tubercu10sis.

0ne c0u1d f0rgive such h0rrifying incidents 0f ma1administrati0n 0f justice and

wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns if they were 0ut1iers 0f an 0therwise efficient crimina1 justice
system. h0wever, am0ng the 1ega1 c0mmunity such st0ries are neither sh0cking n0r
0ut1iers. they are the n0rm.

38
as per a recent1y 1aunched rep0rt by the f0undati0n 0f fundamenta1 rights (ffr) and
reprieve, which c0nducted a detai1ed ana1ysis 0f supreme c0urt judgments 0n death
pena1ty appea1s fr0m 2010 t0 2018, it has c0me t0 1ight that 39 per cent 0f a11 capita1
cases end in c0mp1ete acquitta1. h0wever, the average time spent by inn0cent pers0ns
in jai1, c0nvicted 0n death r0w, unti1 they are acquitted by the supreme c0urt 0n appea1
is a sh0cking 10 years. in fact, 0ne in every 10 wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted death r0w
inmates must wait m0re than 15 years bef0re he 0r she is re1eased!

0ver 0ne third 0f death r0w appea1s end in c0mp1ete acquitta1.

this means that in pakistan, average1y, 0ver 0ne third 0f the pris0n p0pu1ati0n
c0nvicted and sentenced t0 the death pena1ty is c0mprised 0f inn0cent pe0p1e, a11 0f
wh0m wi11 eventua11y be acquitted, but n0t unti1 they have wasted 10 t0 15 years 0f
their 1ives in an 0vercr0wded and p00r1y managed jai1, waiting f0r justice t0 be d0ne.

victims 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns 10se va1uab1e time and reputati0n, face

stigmatisati0n, as we11 as suffer significant ec0n0mic harm – and it is we11 kn0wn that
the m0re time 10st behind bars a1ways equa1s t0 m0re damage suffered by a victim.
theref0re, up0n re1ease, it sh0u1d be the duty 0f the g0vernment under the princip1e 0f
‘ubi jus, ibi remedium’ t0 make the pers0n wh01e f0r the 10ss they have suffered f0r
every h0ur 0f every day they have wr0ng1y spent in jai1 s0 that they may be ab1e t0
readjust back int0 s0ciety and rebui1d their 1ives. this is why many states in the w0r1d,
a10ng with impr0ving their crimina1 justice systems, have enacted 1egis1ati0n t0
pr0vide just c0mpensati0n f0r the inn0cents they jai1.

a system 0f pr0viding financia1 c0mpensati0n t0 the wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted a1s0 acts

as a p0werfu1 financia1 deterrent against the state fr0m wr0ngfu11y c0nvicting its 0wn
citizens. it d0es this by ensuring that the state d0es n0t 0verzea10us1y pr0secute
pers0ns wh0 might be inn0cent and ensuring that crimina1 investigati0ns and
pr0secuti0ns are c0mprehensive. furtherm0re, it enc0urages g0vernments t0 fund 1ega1
ref0rms m0re pr0active1y s0 as t0 av0id financia1 1iabi1ities. m0st imp0rtant1y, c0urts
are a1s0 mindfu1 0f pr0viding every citizen a fair 0pp0rtunity 0f defence bef0re
c0nvicti0n. 0vera11, such 1egis1ati0n pr0duces acc0untabi1ity f0r 0ne 0f the m0st
restrictive p0wers 0f the state: the p0wer t0 restrain the 1iberty 0f its citizens.

39
given that the number 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns is very high and the average time 0f
acquitta1 is a1s0 excessive1y 1engthy, it is the need 0f the h0ur f0r pakistan t0 a1s0
enact 1egis1ati0n that pr0vides f0r s0me rec0mpense t0 th0se wh0 have had their
1iberty unjust1y snatched away by the state. 0ne w0u1d h0pe that the current
g0vernment w0u1d take initiative and pr0mu1gate a 1aw that pr0vides financia1
c0mpensati0n t0 the wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted in pakistan by reimbursing them f0r a11
c0urt and att0rney fees they spend fighting their c0nvicti0n, a10ng with an annua1
a110wance f0r each year that they spent wr0ngfu11y incarcerated; fact0ring in their
10ss 0f inc0me a10ng with any reputati0na1 harm as we11.

this is the 1east we must d0 t0 meet with the c0nstituti0na1 pr0mise set 0ut by artic1e 4
and artic1e 9 0f the c0nstituti0n; that n0 acti0n detrimenta1 t0 the right 0f 1iberty 0f a
citizen sha11 be taken except in strict acc0rdance 0f the 1aw, 1est the shie1d 0f the 1aw
and the name 0f justice in pakistan bec0mes syn0nym0us with ‘tyranny’ t0 th0se
inn0cents wh0 t0i1 away in jai1, waiting t0 be vindicated.

sch01ars at risk is grave1y c0ncerned by t0day’s c0nvicti0n and sentencing t0 death 0f

junaid hafeez, a f0rmer bahauddin zakaria university 1ecturer and a sch01ar 0f
c0mparative 1iterature. mr. hafeez was detained in 2013 after a gr0up 0f students
accused him 0f making b1asphem0us statements 0n s0cia1 media. despite a 1ack 0f any
evidence, he has been he1d f0r m0re than six and a ha1f years, with significant time
spent in s01itary c0nfinement. the tr0ub1ing verdict f0110ws pr0ceedings marked by
c0nsistent pr0cedura1 irregu1arities, pr010nged de1ays, and threats t0 defense c0unse1,
inc1uding the murder 0f 0ne 0f mr. hafeez’s att0rneys. pr0cedura1 0bjecti0ns aside, the
verdict w0u1d imp0se a death sentence 0n a c0nvicti0n f0r a11eged acts 0f n0nvi01ent
expressi0n, in vi01ati0n 0f internati0na1 human rights princip1es.

sch01ars at risk stands with the internati0na1 human rights and higher educati0n
c0mmunities in sending a message 0f supp0rt and s01idarity t0 mr. hafeez and his
fami1y, and t0 impris0ned sch01ars everywhere. sch01ars at risk expects mr. hafeez t0
appea1 this verdict, and respectfu11y urges appr0priate auth0rities t0 stay the sentence,
t0 ensure mr. hafeez’s safety and we11-being during the pendency 0f such appea1, and
t0 ensure that his appea1 pr0ceeds with fu11 regard f0r internati0na1 human rights
n0rms.

40
 1. in 0ct0ber 1993, a 19-year-01d b0y named naseeruddin was at his h0me in
karnataka, preparing f0r his exams. 0ne fine day p01ice kn0cked at his d00r
and t00k him away in handcuffs. initia11y, he was b00ked f0r a b0mb b1ast
that happened in an educati0na1 institute in hyderabad then he was a1s0
b00ked f0r a c0up1e 0f 0ther unres01ved b0mb b1asts. he was b00ked
under the terr0rist and disruptive activities (preventi0n) act, 1987 (tada)
(which was repea1ed tw0 years 1ater) f0r p1anting b0mbs, taking 2 1ives and
injuring 22 pe0p1e in 5 trains. he was put int0 ajmer centra1 jai1 after a
c0nfessi0n. in 2005, he was c0nvicted and given a 1ife sentence at a tada
c0urt in ajmer. in may 2016 the supreme c0urt ru1ed that his c0nfessi0n,
taken in p01ice cust0dy was inadmissib1e and acquitted him 0f a11 charges.
he was inn0cent and had t0 stay 23 years in jai1 1abe11ed as a terr0rist. when
he was interviewed he made a statement that “23 years 0f my 1ife are g0ne t0
pr0ve my inn0cence.”sab mujhse aage badh gaye, aur main sabse peeche reh
gaya.

2. in an0ther case, in assam, a w0man named nasreen was arrested and he1d in
a detenti0n centre f0r three years f0r a crime she had never c0mmitted. the
case was 0f mistaken identity. the p01ice arrested her in p1ace 0f nasreen
das, wh0 had died 10ng ag0. the p01ice didn’t even b0ther t0 ta11y the
surnames bef0re arresting them because they th0ught n0b0dy w0u1d care
ab0ut a p00r and i11iterate w0man. her physica11y handicapped daughter
kept 100king f0r her m0ther in the entire vi11age. she was set free after a
p01ice 0fficer was sent with a c0py 0f the c0urt’s 0rder f0r her re1ease. the
desp0ndent 1ady 10st three years 0f her 1ife with0ut any fau1t 0f hers. the
neg1igence 0f the p01ice caused irreparab1e 10ss t0 her and her daughter.

why d0 wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns 0ccur?

the chief g0a1 0f the state and the c0urts is t0 see that n0 injustice is caused t0 pe0p1e
and adequate remedy is pr0vided t0 victims. t0 achieve this g0a1 in t0ta1ity, the c0urts
need t0 make sure that a fair tria1 is c0nducted. the pr0cess 0f investigati0n,
examinati0n 0f witnesses and pr0ducti0n 0f the accused in the c0urt needs t0 be d0ne
with0ut any 1apses t0 av0id wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns.

41
wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns 0ccur due t0 numer0us reas0ns. s0me 0f them might be:

1. fa1se 0r inaccurate testim0ny given by witnesses.

2. 1awyers 1acking experience in hand1ing cases.

3. the defence 1awyers 1acking the res0urces t0 vig0r0us1y test the

pr0secuti0n’s evidence during the tria1.

4. fabricati0n 0f evidence.

5. manipu1ati0n 0f the testim0ny 0f eyewitnesses.

6. presentati0n 0f fa1se f0rensic evidence.

7. neg1igence 0n the part 0f 1aw enf0rcement 0fficers and pr0secut0rs.

remedies against wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns: steps the state can take t0 und0 the harm 0f
wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns

in pakistan, there is n0 1egis1ative framew0rk f0r pr0viding re1ief t0 the victims 0f

wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns. h0wever, 0ne can inv0ke the writ jurisdicti0n 0f the high c0urts
under artic1e 226 and the supreme c0urt under artic1e 32 0f the c0nstituti0n f0r the
same. the 1aw c0mmissi0n 0f pakistan in its rep0rt 0n ‘wr0ngfu1 pr0secuti0n
(miscarriage 0f justice): 1ega1 remedies’ 0n august 30, 2018, suggested certain
rec0mmendati0ns t0 pr0vide re1ief t0 th0se wh0 are wr0ngfu11y pr0secuted:

1. 1ega1 framew0rk: amendments must be made in the crpc t0 pr0vide

adequate c0mpensati0n t0 the victims 0f a miscarriage 0f justice. the term
miscarriage 0f justice is br0ad and inc1udes within its ambit wr0ngfu1 0r
ma1ici0us pr0secuti0n regard1ess 0f whether it 1eads t0 c0nvicti0n 0r
detenti0n.

2. cause 0f acti0n: the c1aimant must fi1e a c0mpensati0n c1aim stating the
cause 0f acti0n t0 be that 0f wr0ngfu1 pr0secuti0n that ended in acquitta1.
wr0ngfu1 pr0secuti0n inc1udes ma1ici0us pr0secuti0n and pr0secuti0n
with0ut g00d faith.

3. wh0 can app1y: a pers0n can c1aim c0mpensati0n f0r any harm caused t0
his b0dy, mind, reputati0n, 0r pr0perty because 0f the wr0ngfu1 pr0secuti0n.

42
 4. specia1 c0urts: f0r speedy sett1ement 0f wr0ngfu1 c0mpensati0n c1aims the
c0mmissi0n rec0mmends setting up specia1 c0urts in each district.

5. nature 0f pr0ceedings: summary pr0ceedings must be f0110wed in the

specia1 c0urt f0r speedier disp0sa1 0f the case.

6. c0mpensati0n: the c0mmissi0n rec0mmends amendments t0 be made t0 the

crpc t0 inc1ude guiding princip1es f0r the c0urt t0 f0110w whi1e deciding
the am0unt 0f c0mpensati0n. the guide1ines must take int0 c0nsiderati0n the
seri0usness 0f the 0ffence, severity 0f punishment, 1ength 0f detenti0n,
damage t0 hea1th, harm t0 reputati0n, and 10ss 0f 0pp0rtunities.

further, the c0mmissi0n a1s0 rec0mmended that the c0mpensati0n must inc1ude b0th
pecuniary and n0n-pecuniary assistance. n0n-pecuniary assistance inc1udes
c0unse11ing and v0cati0na1 training which can he1p them in finding emp10yment and
getting admissi0ns in educati0na1 instituti0ns.

43
chapter 5

c0nc1usi0n
in the case 0f state atr0cities in the f0rm 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns, there is a crime
against humanity. it is a s0rt 0f 0bstructi0n 0f justice and there must be a 1ega1
mechanism t0 ensure that citizens are n0t wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted and detained and that
pr0per measures sh0u1d be pr0vided f0r them.

the purp0se 0f a crimina1 justice system is t0 uph01d, preserve and pr0tect the ru1e 0f
1aw. it must maintain 0rder, ensure speedy justice, grant sancti0n and rehabi1itate
0ffenders. 0ur crimina1 justice system suffers fr0m certain 1acunas, 0ne 0f them being
wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns. they vi01ate the fundamenta1 rights guaranteed t0 every citizen
0f pakistan and destr0y 0ne 0f the sett1ed princip1es 0f crimina1 1aw that an accused is
presumed t0 be inn0cent un1ess pr0ven gui1ty bey0nd a reas0nab1e d0ubt. the
princip1e 0f presumpti0n 0f inn0cence has been inc0rp0rated in 0ur crimina1 justice
system t0 make sure that n0 injustice is meted 0ut t0 any0ne. the pr0secuti0n and the
defence a1s0 must make sure that there is n0 ma1practice, misrepresentati0n 0r
c0rrupti0n in the case.

the crimina1 justice system needs t0 maintain the equi1ibrium and make sure that it is
pr0viding sancti0ns t0 0n1y the rea1 perpetrat0rs and n0 inn0cent is put behind the
bars. the system’s main aim is t0 bring justice t0 the victims 0f crime. it can 0n1y be
d0ne when the actua1 perpetrat0r is charged with the crime he has c0mmitted and is put
behind bars. it has t0 be kept in mind that err0ne0us c0nvicti0ns can cause irreparab1e
damage t0 the pers0na1 and s0cia1 1ife 0f the inn0cent.

rec0mmendati0n
 in the end, my c0ncern is n0t s0 much with the state 0f research 0n wr0ngfu1
c0nvicti0ns as it is whether pr0fessi0na1s within the crimina1 justice system
wi11 be wi11ing t0 resp0nd t0 that research with appr0priate initiative.
 t0 be sure, we be1ieve that s0cia1 science research has much m0re it can 0ffer t0
the study 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns. but the research t0 date even with s0me 0f

44
 its natura1 meth0d010gica1 1imitati0ns—has pr0vided us c0nsiderab1e insight
int0 the s0urces, c0nsequences, and p0tentia1 remedies f0r wr0ngfu1
c0nvicti0ns.
 it is, instead, the pr0fessi0na1s wh0 staff 0ur crimina1 justice system and the
p01iticians and p01icymakers wh0 emp10y them that may require the m0re
significant impr0vement. c0nsidering the interests at stake in a crimina1
pr0secuti0n and c0nvicti0n—especia11y when the crime carries a capita1 charge
—it is incredib1e t0 the p0int 0f embarrassing that the pakistan system 0f justice
has been s0 resistant t0 inn0cence c0mmissi0ns 0r p0st-ex0nerati0n review.
wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns d0 such harm t0 s0 many that 0ne w0u1d expect crimina1
justicians t0 seek 0ut the 1ess0ns fr0m past err0rs in 0rder t0 prevent them.
 and yet, experience suggests 0therwise. 0n1y a handfu1 0f states have
undertaken seri0us and systematic review 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns, and when
practiti0ners have been inv01ved, it has 0ften taken “kicking and screaming” t0
intr0duce new appr0aches 0r techn010gies t0 impr0ve their w0rk. this 1eve1 0f
resistance, such ast0unding ign0rance and fear, sh0u1d n0t be t01erated in any
pr0fessi0n, but n0where is this m0re imp0rtant than in the crimina1 justice
system. the stakes are simp1y t00 high t0 put 0ur heads in the sand and pretend
that the research unc0vered 0n err0ne0us c0nvicti0ns d0es n0t warrant
attenti0n.
 t0 be sure, few w0u1d c1aim that the crimina1 justice system fai1s m0re 0ften
than it succeeds, but success is premised t0 an extent 0n 1earning fr0m past
mistakes t0 prevent them in the future. c0ntrary t0 the c1aims 0fs0me detract0rs,
we are n0t “demanding an imp0ssibi1ity a perfect system.” n0t because review
wi11 1ead t0 an err0r-free pr0cess, but because pr0fessi0na1ism demands it.
100king t0 the future, s0cia1 science research wi11 und0ubted1y expand 0ur
understanding 0f wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns and system fai1ures. but un1ess
crimina1 justice pr0fessi0na1s, p01icymakers, and p01iticians are tru1y 0pen t0
these findings and are wi11ing t0 ad0pt new measures in 1ight 0f the research,
the research threatens t0 bec0me, quite 1itera11y, an academic exercise.

45
 the first century 0f research has taken us t0 a p0int 0f reve1ati0n and burge0ning
ref0rm. whether the next stage 0f investigati0n wi11 be as i11uminating and
va1uab1e may depend m0re 0n practice than research.

46
references
an0, g.g., & vasc0nce11es, e.b. (2005). re1igi0us c0ping and psych010gica1
adjustment t0 stress: a meta-ana1ysis. j0urna1 0f c1inica1 psych010gy, 61(4),
461–480.
bedau, h.a., & rade1et, m.1. (1987). miscarriages 0f justice in p0tentia11y capita1
cases.
benkert, m., & d0y1e, t.p. (2009). c1erica1ism, re1igi0us duress and its psych010gica1
impact 0n victims 0f c1ergy sexua1 abuse. past0ra1 psych010gy, 58, 223-238.
b1ackst0ne, w. (n.d.). c0mmunicati0n c. 27, margin page 358, ad finem.
canadian res0urce centre f0r victims 0f crime. (2005). the impact 0f victimizati0n.
retrieved, fr0m http://www.crcvc.ca/d0cs/victimizati0n.pdf
center 0n wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns 0f y0uth. (2009). why y0uth c0ntributes t0 wr0ngfu1
c0nvicti0ns. retrieved fr0m http://cwcy.0rg/whyy0uthc0ntributes.aspx
chris, t. (2009). wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns have an impact 0n victims. retrieved fr0m
http://www.ta1k1eft.c0m/st0ry/2009/8/1/205040/3751
c1uss, p.a., b0ught0n, j., frank, e., stewart, b.d., & west, d. (1983). the rape victim:
psych010gica1 c0rre1ates 0f participati0n 0n the 1ega1 pr0cess. crimina1
justice and behavi0r, 10, 342-357.
c011ins, w. (2005). wi1kie c011ins's the dead a1ive: the n0ve1, the case, and
wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns.
c0mmittee 0n identifying the needs 0f the f0rensic sciences c0mmunity. (2009).
davis, d., & 0’d0n0hue, w. (2004). the r0ad t0 perditi0n: extreme inf1uence tactics in
the interr0gati0n r00m. in w. 0’d0nahue (ed.), handb00k 0f f0rensic
psych010gy (pp. 897- 996). san dieg0, ca: academic press.
edmunds, c., & seym0ur, a. (2011). chapter 3: victims’ rights 1aws in the united states.
in 0vc training and technica1 assistance center. participant text: nati0na1 victim
assistance academy track 1. washingt0n, dc: u.s. department 0f justice.
emi1y, j. (2010, may 24). da11as c0unty c0nvicti0n integrity unit turns f0cus t0 n0n-
dna cases.
eng1ebrecht, c.m. (2011). the strugg1e f0r ‘0wnership 0f c0nf1ict’: an exp10rati0n 0f
victim participati0n and v0ice in the crimina1 justice system. crimina1 justice

47
 review, 36, 129- 151.
evanst0n, i1: n0rthwestern university press.
everingt0n, c., & fu1er0, s. (1999). c0mpetence t0 c0nfess: measuring understanding
and suggestibi1ity 0f defendants with menta1 retardati0n. menta1 retardati0n,
37, 212–220

fig1ey c.r. (1995). c0mpassi0n fatigue as sec0ndary traumatic stress dis0rder: an

0verview (pp. 1–20). in c.r. fig1ey (ed.), c0mpassi0n fatigue: c0ping with
sec0ndary traumatic stress dis0rder in th0se wh0 treat the traumatized. new
y0rk: brunner-r0ut1edge.
garrett, b.1. (2005). inn0cence, harm1ess err0r, and federa1 wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0n 1aw.
wisc0nsin 1aw review, 35-114.
g0u1d, j.b., & 1e0, r.a. (2010). 0ne-hundred years 1ater: wr0ngfu1 c0nvicti0ns after a
century 0f research. the j0urna1 0f crimina1 1aw and crimin010gy, 100(3), 825-
868.
green, d.1., & r0berts, a.r. (2008). he1ping victims 0f vi01ent crime: assessment,
treatment, and evidence-based practice. new y0rk, ny: springer pub1ishing
c0mpany.
gr0ss, s.r., & shaffer, m. (2012). ex0nerati0ns in the united states, 1989–2012: rep0rt
by the nati0na1 registry 0f ex0nerati0ns. retrieved fr0m
http://www.1aw.umich.edu/specia1/ex0nerati0n/d0cuments/ex0nerati0ns_us_19
89_2012
gr0ss, s.r., jac0by, k., mathes0n, d.j., m0ntg0mery, n., & pati1, s. (2005). ex0nerati0ns
in the united states: 1989 thr0ugh 2003. the j0urna1 0f crimina1 1aw and
crimin010gy, 95(2), 523-560.
herman, j.1. (2003). the menta1 hea1th 0f crime victims: impact 0f 1ega1 interventi0n.
j0urna1 0f traumatic stress, 16, 159-166.
herringt0n, 1.h., b0b0, g., carringt0n, f., dam0s, j.p., d01an, d.1., eikenberry, k.0., et a1.
(1982). president’s task f0rce 0n victims 0f crime: fina1 rep0rt. retrieve fr0m
http://www.0jp.usd0j.g0v/0vc/pub1icati0ns/presdntstskf0rcrprt/87299.pdf
inn0cence pr0ject. (2010). 250 ex0nerated: t00 many wr0ngfu11y c0nvicted. new y0rk,
ny: benjamin n. card0z0 sch001 0f 1aw.
inn0cence pr0ject. (2011). inn0cence pr0ject case pr0fi1es. retrieved fr0m

48
 http://www.inn0cencepr0ject.0rg/kn0w/
iraz01a, s., wi11iams0n, e., niedzwiecki, e., debus-sherri11, s., & stricker, j. (2013).
eva1uati0n 0f the statewide aut0mated victim inf0rmati0n and n0tificati0n
pr0gram: fina1 rep0rt. fairfax, va: icf internati0na1.
jenkins, c. (2009). he1ping victims in dna ex0nerati0n cases. the pr0secut0r, 39(2).
j0hns0n, k. (1997). pr0fessi0na1 he1p and crime victims. s0cia1 service review, 71(1),
89-110. j01ic0eur, m. (2010). internati0na1 perspectives 0n wr0ngfu1
c0nvicti0ns: w0rksh0p rep0rt.
stanf0rd 1aw review, 40, 21–179.
strengthening f0rensic science in the united states: a path f0rward. washingt0n, dc:
nati0na1 academies press.
the da11as m0rning news.
washingt0n, dc: metametrics, inc. retrieved fr0m
http://www.nij.g0v/t0pics/c0urts/sentencing/internati0na1-perspective-0n-
wr0ngfu1- c0nvicti0ns.pdf

49