Reproduced comments from foot of articles published on the 4th & 6th of April 2016 by Julie Price & Claire McGourlay

Below are reproduced comments made at the foot of an open letter from Julie Price to Richard Foster the then chair of the criminal cases review commission.
The open letter was published on the 4th of April 2016 on Jon Robins The Justice Gap website and can be read here.

Michael Naughton says:
April 5, 2016 at 11:11 am
I fully support this letter and the questions that it poses.
A small team of us are currently working on our response to a CCRC Statement of Reasons not to refer our clients case, which is also based on a desktop review and profoundly weak reasoning and/or arguments for NOT undertaking a more expansive investigation nor, crucially, the dna testing that a leading forensic scientist specialising in dna and bodily fluids recommended in our application.
Our client has been in prison for over 18 years on a 14 year tariff for joint enterprise murder.
There is no reliable evidence of his guilt and we believe him to be an innocent man.
We await with interest any answers that this open letter may receive.

Helga says:
April 7, 2016 at 4:50 pm
We are all fighting the same war. it’s such a shame we cannot help each other instead of arguing.
Support groups for those falsely accused of sexual offences, especially historic cases, work together and share information. Isn’t this how Miscarriages of Justice groups / university law schools, wherever they are, should be too.
This work is hard enough without infighting.
I address this to Mike as well as Claire. I have no doubt that all projects (or whatever they are called) work very hard to right terrible wrongs. Arguing helps nobody.

Julie Price says:
April 20, 2016 at 6:36 pm
Helga – there was a discussion in Cardiff last weekend about common issues faced by those doing pro bono casework, so “working with others” is very much on people’s agendas, and collaborations are happening. We are all acutely aware of the very real problem of people seeking help not knowing where to try to find that help, although it’s clear that demand exceeds supply. Michael will know better than most of the problems of trying to provide some sort of “clearing house”, and no-one thinks it’s going to be easy or fully achievable.
Sheffield (working with the Centre for Criminal Appeals) are developing a portal that will hopefully start to plug the gap left by INUK in that regard, but in a different way – bottom up, rather than top down. The new portal will also aim to be a hub for resources/communications in other ways – another need identified by Michael which he initiated via INUK. There will inevitably be teething problems, and how to make it sustainable without relying on just one or two people will be a core driver.
As discussions advance, the net will no doubt widen and develop organically to meet needs, and to embrace expertise. It is uncertain exactly how these loose collaborations will evolve, but some sort of democratic collective (whatever that might be) is likely. You, and Michael, will be welcome to join in to enhance constructive discussions based on both your extensive experience, to avoid reinventing wheels and to help in ensuring that lessons learned to date are taken on board.
No doubt progress will be reported via the Justice Gap along the way

Michael Naughton says:
April 22, 2016 at 3:02 pm
Julie,
This reply is very vague, which seems unusual for you.
Can you give more detail of who is involved and how others can get involved if they want to and what timeframe are you working to for the new collective to be operational? Do you have a website? Any forthcoming conferences planned for people to learn more?
It seems clear that some sort of working together between the universities doing pro bono innocence work is required and also that it will pretty much almost entirely emulate the INUK model, albeit with different universities/people at the helm, which really makes us wonder why others failed to step up to take on core roles with INUK when asked.
In any event, this is past history now and we/INUK genuinely do wish you well as innocence projects can achieve more for innocent victims of wrongful convictions by working together than in isolation.
As with all things, though, we are judged by deeds not words and you and others have been discussing collaborations for several years now and it will be good to hear how you are making progress.

Julie Price says:
April 25, 2016 at 5:34 pm
Michael – without hesitation, I (and others, I know) unconditionally acknowledge and celebrate your huge personal investment in bringing innocence projects to the UK. You had the vision and energy to put into action something that was needed then, and which sadly remains even more necessary today.
There are many reasons why INUK did not work out as then structured, including the unsustainable burden on one or two people. Colleagues from five universities did offer to “step up”, but perhaps by that point it was too late for you? But as you say, that’s history.
If you prefer, I am happy to have a private email exchange with you if that can be productive and constructive. I can then share what I know about progress on collaborations which are happening, not just being talked about. I can also then ask you some questions.
There is no “helm”, and there is no “organisation”. Those of us collaborating informally want to learn valuable lessons from INUK. The communication mechanism for universities working in this area is currently the Clinical Legal Education Organisation (CLEO) criminal appeals email distribution list. This is not a closed shop. You were sent at least 2 emails inviting you to join that list, and you have in the past asked not to be engaged in collaborations that may or may not be happening, which I have respected. But if you have changed your mind then please add yourself to this list. If you want to make a constructive contribution to discussions, your vast experience would be very welcome.
Moving forward, it will be important to establish (in a way that does not inadvertently mislead) what INUK now is, and is not, particularly if “it” is now doing casework unlike in the past. Thank you for the good wishes from “we/INUK” – it would be helpful to know exactly who is behind those wishes. The organisations currently collaborating informally are all working to some degree with students. Is this the case with “INUK” now that the Bristol project is closed?
Those in Sheffield working on the portal hope to have something in place online over the summer. It will contain some way of facilitating universities and others working in the field to communicate, but the exact detail of how this will happen has not yet been resolved. It is a work in progress.

Below are reproduced comments made at the foot of an open letter from Claire McGourlay, Andrew Green, James Cairns, Chris Musgrove and Elliot Booth to Richard Foster the then chair of the criminal cases review commission.
The open letter was published on the 6th of April 2016 on Jon Robins The Justice Gap website and can be read here.

Michael Naughton says:
April 6, 2016 at 4:15 pm
References to INUK are incorrect and unnecessary and merely detract from an otherwise reasonable letter, imho.
Don’t you agree that it is time to move on (INUK ceased member ship in 2014 and its reasons are well documented and fully transparent on the INUK website) and be judged by your own deeds and their outcomes as any other independent entity?
Re your own transparency: how many cases are you working on? (I do know how many INUK referred to you in the 8 years Sheffield was a member). How long have you been working on them? How many requests/applications have you made to the police or CPS for access to exhibits or biological samples for testing by new techniques? How many applications have you made to the CCRC on behalf of clients? How many were referred back to the Court of Appeal? How many were overturned? etc.
Is this not what really matters to innocent victims of wrongful convictions and imprisonment and their families and the test of a successful and effective cle enterprise?

Claire McGourlay says:
April 7, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Although this letter was not an open letter about you here is our answer to you.
Since you took an arbitrary decision two years ago to close down the network that linked innocence projects (rather than reform it into a democratic mutual support organization), you are not entitled to statistics from us (particularly when you tweet about how useless we all are-very unnecessary in my opinion and I can’t reply as you have blocked me and my students) and yes we have moved on and are doing very well indeed.
We have no fear of transparency, so here is some information.
We have 13 active clients, not including dormant cases i.e. those that we can’t work on, or which are with the CCRC.
We also did a significant amount of work on Danny Major’s case but no longer can as we’ve been prevented by the intervention of Greater Manchester Police.
How long do we work on a case? Varies, and as you well know, is out of our control: delays caused by CPS, lawyers, clients, discoveries of potential fresh evidence that have to be followed up, clients becoming uncontactable at times.
Requests/applications to the police or CPS for access to exhibits or biological samples for testing by new techniques? Irrelevant in most of our cases (only 1 of our cases involved this).
Applications to the CCRC? One refusal and 3 cases currently under consideration by CCRC. Additionally, actively compiling applications on behalf of 4 clients. Others are delayed due to new lines of inquiry opening up which are likely to produce additional significant fresh evidence, which we are pursuing on the instructions of our clients.
As you are well aware there are no simple answers to such complex questions where complex and detailed responses are required. We do not need to spend further time on this, as we have cases to work on. All our clients are informed about how we work when we offer to take on their cases, and kept informed of progress or problems when they occur. We also publish an annual report and anyone is welcome to it.
In a similar spirit of transparency, I trust that you will answer my following questions:
1.   In May 2013 (the latest time for which the Inquiry newsletter – edition 8 – posts such data), INUK claims that 110 cases had been referred to member projects, and there was a further waiting list of 113. Please let us know how those figures are broken down and what happened to those on the waiting list when you disbanded INUK.
2.   As regards INUK’s current status, there is clear confusion about what INUK now is, and the website is misleading. It is not a membership organisation; it is not a network; it does not represent the UK. Will you please urgently amend the website wording to clarify that confusion so that vulnerable people looking for help know exactly what INUK now is and what it is not?
3.   You say you are doing casework. How many cases are you working on, and what stages are they at? Who is doing this casework?

Michael Naughton says:
April 7, 2016 at 7:37 pm
You are fully aware of why INUK ceased membership and it is recorded on the INUK website so I am somewhat at a loss about the motives behind your questions. Nonetheless, for the record, I refute the claim that I took an arbitrary decision to cease INoUK membership and also the claim that INUK was not democratic. INUK’s current status is very clearly articulated on the website to my mind. Our casework is confidential unless and until cases are referred by the CCRC when they will be made public.

Julie Price says:
April 8, 2016 at 11:36 am
Michael – Claire’s casework is confidential in the same way as yours (and everyone’s), so your answer is not similarly transparent. We have also been asked about the fate of the 113 people on the 2013 INUK waiting list, so that’s a genuine question too.
We all (genuinely) raise our hats to you for your fantastic original inspiration and hard work that started this whole thing off. But INUK’s website is far from clear that INUK is now just you (if it’s not just you, then it needs to say who is involved). That issue needs to be resolved urgently in the interests of avoiding innocent or accidental misrepresentations, and in accordance with your ongoing ethical and moral responsibility based on INUK’s rightful place in history.
It also must be in everyone’s interests to avoid a regular drip-feed of Twitter snipes and pinned “poetry” – let’s hope that is now in the past, and that your response to my open letter to the CCRC might instead mark a welcome return to constructive re-engagement in the interests of the bigger picture.
We can then all take on board Helga’s wise words…

Michael Naughton says:
April 10, 2016 at 6:56 pm
Hi Helga,
I honestly wish you were correct and that things were so straight-forward.
Alas, after 10 years of trying to work together with allegedly like-minded people with the same core aim – help to get innocent people to overturn their convictions and clear their names – it is clear to me that there are many different motives that are also at play and which can undermine what I think of as the core aim – careers, student recruitment, cv’s, vanity, to name but a few.
As you well know, INUK was set up as with the express aim of aiding working together but, as is documented on the INUK website, members generally failed to get involved on any level (even attending meetings and training events for a step too far for most) and casework was negligible for many.
Inevitably, little or no progress was made on the cases referred to the various innocence projects by INUK.
INUK ceased membership as others did not want to get involved to work together to sort things out and we did not feel that it was ethical to keep referring cases if they were tending not to be worked on in the face of mounting complaints from prisoners that they were dissatisfied with the innocence projects that we had referred their cases too.
I think that it is instructive that the innocence projects, or whatever names they now call themselves, have not as yet formed some sort of new collective if they want to work together?

Wullie Beck says:
April 14, 2016 at 12:50 am
If I was an appellant to CCRC while Graham Zellick was a member I would be asking for a review of their decisions.
He told delgetaes at SCCRC conference in Glasgow that single commissioners decided cases in England.

Wullie Beck says:
April 14, 2016 at 12:53 am
I am also left wondering exactly how many INUK events Your University attended Claire ? 

Claire Mcgourlay says:
April 14, 2016 at 12:42 pm
Almost every singe one of them and with a lot of my students in tow. We even organized one conference.