Volume 6, numéro 2, automne 2025

EN :

This article examines the causes and prevention of wrongful convictions in Japan. The criminal justice system heavily relies on interrogations, reinforced by systemic flaws. With an exceptionally high conviction rate, judges’ role in determining guilt is largely limited, making prosecutors the key decision-makers. Once indicted, innocent individuals face severe disadvantages. These structural issues contribute to wrongful convictions, particularly through false confessions and accomplice false testimony. Psychological factors such as confirmation bias, recognized globally as a major cause of wrongful convictions, also play a role in Japan. This highlights the universality of wrongful conviction risks and underscores the need for international collaboration. Since transitioning away from interrogation-dependent investigations is difficult, developing an alternative investigative model is essential, further emphasizing the importance of global research. For prevention, Japan has traditionally relied on judges refining fact-finding through evidentiary evaluation and the Cautionary Principle. While this helps ensure logical reasoning, it carries risks, as the principle itself may have flaws and is not always applied consistently. To address the recurring causes of wrongful convictions, a new approach has been proposed in Japan, integrating risk management principles. By systematically analyzing past wrongful conviction cases, this method seeks to prevent future errors. The principle of “learning about and from wrongful convictions” is emerging as a critical theme in global wrongful conviction research.

EN :

This article considers how courts in Ireland have responded to newly discovered evidence that a defendant was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence. Where such evidence was not known to the jury, there is a risk that a wrongful conviction may have occurred. When psychiatrists examine a defendant for the purposes of criminal proceedings, they may only have had limited time to study and diagnose the defendant. Sometimes, the defendant’s subsequent symptoms and presentation can lead to a psychiatrist revising their original diagnosis. In Ireland, a defendant can make an application arguing that this newly discovered fact shows that there has been a miscarriage of justice in relation to the original conviction. It appears that Irish courts will only accept such applications in exceptional circumstances. This article discusses the recent Court of Appeal decisions in People (DPP) v Abdi (no 2) and People (DPP) v McGinley. It analyses the reasoning of the judgments and seeks to identify what general principles can be derived from the decisions that can be used to inform future applications.