The British Govt. work on the premise that every 4-5 years it may be someone else's problem to pay out compensation, so the can gets perpetually kicked down the road. It's the only way we can continue to operate with a totally failed justice system, where the accused never get to see the evidence that would exonerate them - as in the Post Office Scandal, Andrew Malkinson, and many many others.

Crime statistics that convince the public they are safe, and win votes, are apparently far more important than locking the correct people up. Anyone will do!

This is a petition to end this Country's 'sham' justice system

This general election, why not ask your local MP when the party canvasses your door, why they do not support the adoption of the recommendations by the Centre Criminal Appeals as detailed in their 2018 Executive paper, giving written evidenceeee to the Justice Select Committee inquiry, and which details very succinctly the many faults in our sham justice system that is now replete with miscarriages of justice?

Judges are equally culpable in this sham, for their pretence that prosecutors present a fair, balanced and truthful case against the accused in the UK's courtrooms. The reason that judges are equally culpable is because they enable the prosecution to get away with consistent failures in their duty of disclosure to disclose all the evidence that would exonerate defendants. Here is what the Executive summary had to say:

The current disclosure regime is not fit for purpose. Under it, crucial evidence is
routinely withheld from defendants and there is an unacceptably high risk of
miscarriages of justice occurring.

In particular, the police should be relieved of their role deciding what evidence is – and more importantly what evidence is not – disclosed to defendants.

Although trial-level disclosure failings are widespread, the current postconviction
disclosure regime makes it unnecessarily difficult for any resulting miscarriages of justice to be addressed.

It is the defendant or would-be appellant to whom the right of access to post-conviction disclosure should apply. This right should not be denied because of the
existence of an arm’s length body (the CCRC) subject to the vagaries of government funding levels.

The current disclosure framework has inherent faults which cause an unacceptably high risk of defendants receiving unfair trials and miscarriages of justice resulting. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003) and its accompanying Code of Practice are structurally flawed in three key respects, which are interlinked:
• They require the police and prosecution to act in an impartial and inquisitorial
manner, when in practice they act as adversaries to the defence;
• They require police officers to make critical legal decisions regarding the
sensitivity of material, when they are not legally-qualified;
• They require police officers and prosecutors to make decisions regarding the
relevance and value of material, when in fact it is the defence who will almost
always likely know better what will help establish their client’s innocence or
lesser culpability.

Evidence that police officers and prosecutors are inherently the wrong people to be
tasked with ensuring the defence receives fair disclosure is provided by CPS focus
group notes and survey answers obtained by the Centre for Criminal Appeals from
HMCPSI under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In these, prosecutors state
that:
• “officers… put undermining material on the [MG6]D [the sensitive unused
material schedule] to hide [it from the defence]”;

“officers are reluctant to investigate a defence or take statements that might
assist the defence or undermine our case”;
• some “lawyers simply refuse to disclose undermining material”.

These comments illustrate why in an adversarial system it is too risky to assign one
side (the police and CPS) responsibility for providing fair and full disclosure to the
other (the defence).

The current post-conviction disclosure framework is not satisfactory for enabling
appropriate disclosure of evidence. This is because under it, it is incredibly difficult for
the wrongly convicted to discover and access police and CPS documents and exhibits
that could help exonerate them.

It places those seeking disclosure in a Catch-22. To make a successful request, they will need to know of the likely existence of specific exculpatory material within police and CPS files in advance. Yet the only possible way of discovering the existence of such material will almost always be through having access to the files and reviewing them;

It leaves decision-making regarding access to material to police forces and the
CPS, who naturally have little incentive to open their past actions to scrutiny;

This current legal framework has arisen from a desire to make impossible what are
disparagingly called “fishing exhibitions”. However, the simple reality is that in most
cases the only way in which exculpatory material will be uncovered is by a
comprehensive review of police and prosecution material on a case.