Ranked lawyer and miscarriages of justice criminal appeals solicitor

You don’t have to be a leading criminal solicitor to know that miscarriages of justice do occur; if you or a loved-one are unfortunate enough to be at the sharp end of a wrongful conviction or an excessive sentence and, if you are able to pay for his services privately, Jim Meyer can help.

Judges and juries can and do get it wrong. Of course, you want to instruct a defence team who are going to work tirelessly to ensure that they don’t, and that they make the right decision, based on all of the evidence available. But what happens when this doesn’t happen? What happens if your previous defence team advise you that you there are no grounds for appeal?

You need to get a second opinion! Ask Jim to review the case and consider what went wrong and why. You will have your own ideas but seek the help of a professional and call on their experience to help you navigate what can be a daunting and demoralising quest for justice.

Appealing a wrongful conviction and / or sentence is not easy – instruct a lawyer in whom you have confidence

Jim will assess the evidence and how it unfolded during the trial process. He will critically evaluate the strategy of the previous defence team and why they took the decisions that they did. Jim helps his clients access (and achieve) justice by following a systematic and detailed investigation of what has gone on:

  • Assess: in simple terms Jim will identify the information available concerning the police case, the prosecution evidence, the police investigation and the defence case and establish what further information needs to be obtained, from where, in what time frame, and how. He will develop a plan of action and a detailed “wants” list, i.e. specific questions that need answering.
  • Communicate: to achieve justice a lawyer needs to communicate effectively. Jim manages his conversations with key individuals so that his requests, questions and responses are guided by a clear plan of action and strategy that he agrees with his clients.
  • Collect and collate: the majority of case information is distributed, making it difficult to access and to represent detail contained within any number of statements, reports, notes, completed forms, tape recordings, exhibits, transcripts, etc. Jim’s approach allows him to gain a detailed grasp of this disparate information.
  • Evaluate: all analysis involves going “beyond the facts” and once Jim has collected all the information he evaluates it. This sounds (and is) obvious, but too often practitioners do not “puIl” the material together, or devote sufficient time to extract data that is distributed across the available aggregation of oral or written testimony. Because of this, many fail to detect multiple versions, gaps, mismatches, contradiction and other anomalies. Jim’s analysis enables him to:
    • Examine, highlight, identify and understand features, characteristics and attributes of the detail before him, its source, or indeed the entire case, e.g. match/mismatch, the presence and degree of gap, ambiguity, vagueness, contradiction, contrast and variation – in breadth and amount of detail, at one point in time and across a time span;
    • Test the status of specific detail, its source, or the case, e.g. in terms of validity, coherence, plausibility, credibility;
    • Plan further investigation, e.g. to resolve gaps and anomalies in the case, in the evidence or in particular accounts and descriptions.
  • Survey: Jim conducts a comprehensive appraisal of his findings and draws conclusions – particularly in terms of the need to revise any given perspective on a particular matter – and identifies alternative lines of enquiry or courses of action. He develops case theories and themes, always alert to the possibility for, and supporting evidence of:
    • An innocent client pleading guilty because of the perverse incentives built into the system;
    • Confirmation bias on the part of investigators;
    • The withholding or destruction of evidence by the prosecution;
    • The fabrication of evidence;
    • Perjury by police or prosecution witnesses;
    • Biased editing of evidence;
    • Prejudice and / or bias;
    • Mistaken identification;
    • An incorrect evaluation of the evidential weight of expert opinion;
    • Contaminated evidence;
    • Faulty forensic tests;
    • False confessions because of police pressure or psychological conditions;
    • Misdirection of a jury by a judge during trial;
    • Judicial Misconduct.
  • Summarise: Jim’s approach enables him to provide clients with a straightforward summary of the situation that spells out the key issues so that they can properly assess the situation that confronts them. He helps them make the right decision to achieve justice in their case.

Appealing adverse decisions is a marathon, not a sprint. Instructing Jim in the substantive proceedings is a way to avoid finding yourself in this position but, if you do, hiring him to appeal and achieve justice is the next best thing.

Relevant case law in relation to criminal appeals

[rb_output_case_precedents tag-ids=”1377″]
Scroll to top