Reinvestigations

The case of Sam Hallam provides an insight into a reinvestigation conducted by one police force (Thames Valley Police, instructed by the CCRC), which reviewed an investigation by another force (the Metropolitan Police). Sam Hallam was convicted of murder, conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm and violent disorder, following a gang fight on 11 October 2004 at about 20.30 hours in East London, in which another young man, Essayas Kassahun, was killed. The case against him at his trial rested on identification evidence provided by two witnesses. ‘The weaknesses in their evidence were such that independent supporting evidence was, in practice, essential.’ [1] Hallam ’s defence was that he was with his friend Timmy Harrington on day of the murder , but Harrington denied this, and the prosecution alleged that he had concocted an alibi. This was the supporting evidence.  Hallam appealed in 2006, but his conviction was upheld. He then applied to the CCRC to have his case reviewed. ...

Engaging with the Enemy, or Back to the Bad Old Days: pre-charge engagement [ an updated version of this article is available on the Justice Gap website] Do new rules, which allow both prosecutors and defendants and their lawyers to meet and discuss what enquiries the police should make, mark the start of a cooperative search for truth and justice, or are they a means of returning to the old days when the police made deals with suspects who were kept in order by their own lawyers?  The idea of pre-charge engagement seems to have arisen as a partial solution to the serious and continuing problems besetting the process of disclosure in criminal cases. The disclosure of evidential material (documents, digital records, video recordings etc.) to defendants by prosecutors of any material which might support the defence case or undermine the prosecution case, and the police enquiries which gather material relating to crimes, are governed by the Criminal Proceedings and Investigat...