Michael Naughton who works at Bristol university and who was referred in Part 17a here, Part 17b here, Part 17e here, Part 17f here and from page 11 of the criminal cases review commissions statement of reasons here (Under the title of UoBIP = university of Bristol innocence project) submitted his PhD thesis in 2003 entitled Miscarriages of justice : exception to the rule?.
Th following year the BBC reported under the header Injustice network to be launched some of the below excerpts;
Victims of miscarriages of justice are combining with academics to help people who have been wrongly convicted.
The UK Innocence Network will also be actively involved in research into wrongful convictions.
The network is designed to help those convicted of criminal offences who have exhausted all appeal processes.
Dr Michael Naughton, a lecturer in criminal law at Bristol University, is pioneering the new group in the UK.
There are already similar networks in the US and Australia.
He said the criminal justice system is in “crisis” because it cannot cope with the number of people who believe they have been wrongly jailed.
“I do not think that all those prisoners who say they are innocent are necessarily innocent, but there is nothing in the system to address this massive problem,” he said.
The organisation will bring together victims, campaigners, academics and politicians.
Dr Naughton said the organisation hoped to change the legal system, which he said was currently “balanced in favour of the prosecution”.
Excerpts from a BBC article headed Injustice network to be launched dated the 2nd of September 2004
Michael Naughton went on to tell David Clensy he apparently “fell in love with education” and referred to himself as “another Rita”, as can be read in the following excerpts which were published in an article headed Fighting for simple justice;
“Remember Educating Rita? Well I was another Rita”
“I’d come out of school with hardly any qualifications, but as I got older I began to realise how much I could become engrossed in the academic world despite my working class background”
Michael fully immersed himself in his studies and was rewarded with a first class honours, which in turn led to a scholarship to fund a Phd in his chosen area of interest – miscarriages of justice
”But I was still very naive when I joined the department as a paid member of staff in order to found the independence project”, he admits
”Back then I still thought that all we had to do was, with the students’ help find the truth in the forgotten pieces of evidence, place the truth before the CCRC and say hey look, we’ve got the evidence needed to get this poor bloke’s case overturned”
”I thought the prosecution lawyers would be the ones that would be our enemies. I thought the barristers who were meant to defend these people in the first place, would be keen to try to get their convictions overturned
”But I’ve learned a lot about defence lawyers since then. Of course they don’t want to see their clients have their convictions overturned. They don’t want to see some smart students come along and find pieces of evidence they failed to find, and in so doing show them up for their professional inadequacies
Excerpts from David Clency’s article headed Fighting for simple justice dated the 7th of March 2012
Exploitation, Lack Of Reasoning Or Accountability
When Michael Naughton founded the UK innocence network (INUK) he also put together a set of protocols which were meant to be adhered to by him, and all those involved with the network.
The following INUK protocols were once published here but have since been deleted from the World Wide Web (WWW);
9.12 INUKs position on media enquiries is to decline to discuss details of particular cases unless/until a case is overturned as a result of innocence project involvement or referred to the CCRC/SCCRC or to the Home Secretary for consideration for a Free Pardon under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, and then simply to confirm if/when asked that a case is under investigation/been referred if that is the case, but this must always be done in liaison with the clients permission.
9.13 INUK recognises that member innocence projects may wish to become involved in media interviews about individual cases, for example in the interests of seeking new evidence, but this must always be done with the express permission of the client.
Excerpts from Michael Naughton’s innocence network UK protocols (Original source here)
A day after the criminal cases review commission announced they would be referring Joan Albert’s actually, factually guilty killers murder conviction to the court of appeal, Michael Naughton published the following (Originally published here, and like with the INUK protocols since deleted from the WWW);
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) announced yesterday that it has referred the case of Simon Hall to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) who was convicted of the murder of 79 year old Joan Albert in February 2003.
Since 2006, Simon’s case has been investigated by the University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP) and five students from the UoBIP investigating Simon’s case was the subject of the last BBC Rough Justice documentary in April 2007.
Gabe Tan has headed the investigation throughout its time with the UoBIP and has personally committed many hundreds of voluntary hours to produce various submissions to the CCRC over the years on the limitations of the fibre evidence claimed to link Simon to the crime scene and the possible utility of new DNA techniques on biological samples found at the murder scene.She has unearthed information (which for legal reasons cannot be disclosed at this time) in previously unused evidence that may conclusively prove Simon’s factual innocence.
Michael Naughton – 15th October 2009
On the 18th of October 2009, killer Simon Hall instructed Michael Naughton and the INUK to seize all work on his fraudulent public relations campaign and case but Michael Naughton chose to break his INUK protocols.
Excerpts from an article published to Bristol university’s news and features page of their website )on the 20th of October 2009) under the header University of Bristol Innocence Project case referred back to Court of Appeal read;
A murder case that has been under investigation by the University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP) has been referred back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
The referral is the first for an innocence project case in the UK.
Simon Hall was convicted of the murder of 79-year-old Joan Albert in February 2003.
His conviction hinged almost solely on the basis of black flock fibres found at the scene, in his vehicle and at his parent’s home.
Excerpts from an article headed University of Bristol Innocence Project case referred back to Court of Appeal dated the 20th of October 2009.
A copy of the criminal cases review commission’s statement of reasons regarding why they chose to refer the murder conviction to the court of appeal can be read by tapping on the button below;
As had already pointed out throughout the The Truth Behind Killer Simon Hall & His & His Deceitful Enablers Innocence Fraud Phenomenon Scam blog series, killer Simon Hall’s conviction for his murder of Joan Albert “hinged” on a wealth of circumstantial evidence, including the Hall families lies and concoctions.
Michael Naughton was also behind an article written by Heather Mills and published by Private Eye magazine on the 13th of November 2009 (Edition number 1249).
Below is a copy of the Private Eye magazine article;
(number 1249)
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 
4 thoughts on “Killer Simon Hall: Bristol University’s “Post Conviction Activist” Michael Naughton Aka Empowering The Innocent, Educating Rita, Facilitating & “Empowering” Actually, Factually Guilty Psychopathic Murderers, Exploitation & A Lack Of Accountability – Part 19©️”