How would you feel if after having spent many years incarcerated for a crime that you did not commit and when finally you are released to a broken life where there is nobody to respond effectively to all the damages that you have and that you will continue to endure due to an unfortunate miscarriage of justice? In Canada, compensation for wrongful convictions is a legal issue which has yet to find a solution for those who the government has denied to pay compensation for and the damages such wrongful conviction brought to their lives. This thesis will analyze the legal problem of compensation for wrongful convictions in Canada from a tort law perspective and will present an alternative to the existing regime to serve justice to those who have been victims of miscarriages of justice.

How would you feel if after having spent many years incarcerated for a crime that you did not commit and when finally you are released to a broken life where there is nobody to respond effectively to all the damages that you have and that you will continue to endure due to an unfortunate miscarriage of justice? In Canada, compensation for wrongful convictions is a legal issue which has yet to find a solution for those who the government has denied to pay compensation for and the damages such wrongful conviction brought to their lives. This thesis will analyze the legal problem of compensation for wrongful convictions in Canada from a tort law perspective and will present an alternative to the existing regime to serve justice to those who have been victims of miscarriages of justice.

In Canada, wrongful convictions arose as a social problem with the rise of the innocence movement throughout the 1990s (Zalman, 2020). Despite its rise as a social problem and the increasing attention it has received in the popular media, there has been a lack of research analyzing exactly how wrongful convictions are constructed. The purpose of this research is to analyze how the claimsmakers present at the Morin Inquiry constructed the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin. The purpose of this analysis is to provide insight into the overall construction of wrongful convictions as a social problem through the examination of the claimsmaking taking place within a typifying example. To accomplish this, a qualitative content analysis of the Commission on the Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin, using a social constructionist lens, was conducted. Specifically, this thesis analyzed the contents of the Morin Inquiry using the theory of contextual constructionism as defined by Best (1987, 2013). The findings of this research reveal that: (1) the claimsmakers in the Morin Inquiry constructed Guy Paul Morin’s wrongful conviction as a preventable occurrence caused by a combination of individual wrongdoings and correctible systemic errors; (2) through the construction of blameless victims and blameworthy villains as well as the demonstration that wrongful convictions challenge the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, the claimsmakers were able to demonstrate that Morin’s wrongful conviction was worth addressing; and (3) through the adoption of inquiry recommendations, future wrongful convictions can be prevented, and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system can be restored. Finally, this thesis concludes by discussing implications, contributions and limitations of the findings before presenting ideas for future research.

Le véritable enseignement de la présente étude réside en ce que, comme déjà évoqué, le poids de l’appareil judiciaire finit par acquérir plus de consistance que le crime lui-même. A « l’aventure criminelle », c’est-à-dire celle, tragique, des faits à réprimer, se substitue « l’aventure judiciaire », celle de la marche de la justice en vue de parvenir au jugement des faits. Qu’il s’agisse du procès pénal français ou anglo-saxon, l’étude démontre que les règles applicables sont d’une telle complexité qu’elles génèrent une logique judiciaire spécifique et presque détachée des faits à traiter. Les praticiens sont souvent surpris du contraste entre les faits à juger, dont les mobiles et les circonstances sont toujours simples, et la solution judiciaire plus et/ou trop élaborée.L’étude démontre encore le caractère immuable et presque immobile de la justice pénale. Qu’il s’agisse de la France ou des pays anglo-saxons, les fondamentaux des deux systèmes judiciaires en concurrence –procédure inquisitoire ou procédure accusatoire- sont les mêmes depuis le Moyen Âge. Certes, des réformes interviennent, le poids du contradictoire s’accroit, les procédures de recours sont organisées, etc. Mais il s’agit toujours en France de faire faire une enquête approfondie avant procès par un organe d’état et, dans les pays anglo-saxons, de voir s’affronter deux thèses avec un avantage pratique à l’accusation.C’est que, comme le démontre aussi l’étude, la philosophie sociale de chacun des deux mondes français et anglo-saxon est différente sur le statut du suspect : objet d’une recherche de la vérité en France et presque coupable chez les Anglo-Saxons.Cette philosophie sociale en recoupe une autre : la philosophie politique. En France, l’individu est assisté car l’Etat est plus grand que lui ; dans les pays anglo-saxons, l’individu est un homme libre et seul responsable de son destin. Dès lors, en France, l’Etat veut forger sa propre opinion sur des faits délictueux ; dans les pays anglo-saxons, l’affrontement des individus (parquetiers et défenseurs) prime le reste. De plus, dans ces pays, la liberté et l’indépendance reconnues à l’individu le rendent davantage responsable de ses faits et gestes, d’où l’importance démesurée accordée à l’aveu. Pour autant, cette philosophie politique d’un citoyen libre et fort est un extraordinaire levier pour l’Histoire de la Liberté et celle aussi de l’Expansion économique. Sans elle, les pays européens du continent n’auraient sans doute pas pu se soustraire à la botte de conquérants. Sans elle, les Etats-Unis ne seraient pas une locomotive du développement.Il ne faudrait pas croire non plus que le monde anglo-saxon n’a fait que peu d’apports positifs au procès pénal. C’est à la loi britannique sur l’Habeas corpus de 1679 que l’on doit l’idée d’un délai raisonnable pour être jugé et, à défaut, le droit à être remis en liberté. C’est encore aux Britanniques que l’on doit l’idée de droits de la défense recensés en tant que tels, d’abord dans certains articles de la Magna Carta de 1212 puis dans le Bill of Rights de 1689. C’est aux Américains que l’on doit l’idée de sacraliser les droits de la défense en leur donnant un contenu constitutionnel par les amendements à la Constitution de 1787, ajoutés à partir de 1789, une idée qui sera reprise bien plus tard dans la Convention Européenne des Droits de l’Homme et des libertés fondamentales.L’étude montre donc que les pays anglo-saxons réputés pragmatiques ont plutôt fait des contributions de principe, sans mesurer que les applications pratiques qu’ils en tirent dénaturent le procès pénal. L’étude montre aussi que la France, réputée pour ses approches dogmatiques et rationnelles mais d’une raison déconnectée des réalités, a une vision bien plus juste du procès pénal.L’étude a enfin montré que, dans le domaine de la justice pénale, les mondes français et anglo-saxons s’ignorent. / This study shows that the criminal process finally acquires more consistency than the crime itself. The “criminal adventure”, namely the tragical story of the crime itself, turns into “the judicial adventure”, namely the path of justice towards the final decision (conviction or dismissal). Whether it deals with the French or with the Anglo-Saxon models, the legal rules are so complicated that they create a judicial logic which is specific and clipped from the facts of the case. In comparison, the motives and the circumstances of a crime are always simple. Accordingly, the judicial issue appears to be more (and often too much) elaborated than the crime itself.The study also shows the unchanging character of the criminal justice. Whether it is in France or in the Anglo-Saxon countries, the fundamentals of the two justices which are concurrent – inquisitorial model and adversary one- are the same that in the Middle Age. Of course, some reforms happened. The importance of the rule of the contradictory increases, etc. However, the main concern of the French justice still deals with a pretrial investigation which is very thoroughly conducted by a state agency. The Anglo-Saxon model always lies in the confrontation of two thesis with a practical advantage given to the prosecution. These different approaches by the two justices are attributable to a different social philosophy. The status of the suspected person greatly differs whether he is prosecuted in France or in the Anglo-Saxon countries: in France, this status is a matter of the search for the truth; in the Anglo-Saxon countries, this status is in practice that of an almost guilty one, even if his guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.This social and/or ethic philosophy recuts another one: the political philosophy. In France, the individual is assisted since the State is deemed to be “stronger” than him; in the Anglo-Saxon countries, the individual is a free man; accordingly, he is solely responsible for his acts. Therefore, in France, the State wants to fix up its own opinion about the crime; in the Anglo-Saxon countries, the confrontation of the prosecution and the lawyer outdoes all the rest, in particular the truth. Moreover, in these countries, according to the freedom and the independence of the individual, an undue importance is given to confessions.However, the Anglo-Saxon political philosophy is an extraordinary lever for the history and the liberty and also for the economic expansion. Without it, the continental countries would not have been able to be freed from the conquerors of the two world wars and the cold war. Without it, the US would not be a forefront of the progress.We do not consider that the Anglo-Saxon world made few positive contributions to the criminal proceedings. Indeed, this is the famous English Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 which created the idea of a reasonable time to be tried in court and, if not, to be released from prison. From the English comes the idea of an explicit list of rights of the defence, in particular in some articles in the Magna Carta of 1212 and then officially included in the Bill of Rights of 1689. From the Americans comes the idea of making the rights of defence sacred through the amendments of the constitution. We remember that this idea arrived late in Europe with the ECHR.Therefore, the study shows that the Anglo-Saxons countries which benefit from a reputation of pragmatism have rather acted as theoreticians of criminal law. They have provided the world of criminal justice mainly with contributions close to symbols. They have underestimated the consequences of these symbols in the practice of the criminal proceedings. The study shows also that the French, who are often known for their dogmatic approach of problems, have a better understanding of the criminal proceedings.The study shows especially that the Anglo-Saxon world of criminal justice and the French one totally ignore each other.

本研究主要是陳述自白濫用之困境與解決途徑。過去法院在審理案件時，相當重視犯人的自白，然而過份強調自白容易違反無罪推定原則及公平法院原則，且易造成誤判。自白信用性應如何確定，一直是刑事法學及偵審實務上最具爭議且影響事實認定之重大的課題，但深入探討此議題的文獻有限。在台灣最著名的冤案之一就是江國慶案，其冤案成因，主要是法院與偵查機關過度依賴江國慶的自白，研究者為監察院調查官，於民國92年奉命調查此案，調查期間因案件需要，遂開始研究此議題。拉丁法諺明確說明「自白是證據之王」。過去常見使用非任意性自白作為裁判基礎，但對於如何獲取自白方式較不被重視，使用酷刑取得非任意性自白很常見。雖然現代社會使用拷問及酷刑方式取得非任意性自白並不多見，但法官與檢察官仍十分重視自白，因與其他證據相較，自白較容易勾畫犯罪事實之全貌，具有較優勢的地位。雖然自白之取得縱未經強暴、脅迫、利誘、詐欺或其他不正方法，然仍有許多案件顯示有虛偽自白情形。到底是何種原因產生虛偽自白，應該用何種分析方式與審查標準評價該自白，首先必須探討國家機關獲取自白之方式與過程對於犯罪嫌疑人心理影響，始能明瞭自白內容其實是偵訊者透過訊問與犯罪嫌疑人溝通互動之產物，存有偵訊者主觀的意念。因此，本研究之目的主要是藉由江國慶案件深入分析自白信用性，並訂定出審查標準。 本文引用日本有關自白信用性之學說、研究結果以及現行實務，配合我國實務現狀，再藉由江國慶案卷證，描繪自白信用性審查標準。江國慶案因受限軍事審判法規定，不得上述上訴最高法院審酌，其中有關江國慶自白部分具有相當疑義，包括自白之成立係在高壓偵訊環境中所生, 自白與證物不一致等。本案為密室偵訊之典型案例，其中雖自白任意性之爭議極大，但因任意性舉證極為困難，導致歷審軍事法院均三言兩語駁回被告有關任意性之調查證據之聲請，此即為自白任意性在實務操作最大的問題；就自白信用性部分，歷審法院認定方式較無標準，這也是我國實務上之通病。綜合文獻及實務，研究者認為在審查自白信用性的標準應包括：(1)自白成立過程 (2)自白內容變動之合理性 (3)體驗供述之陳述 (4)秘密的暴露 (5)自白與客觀證據之一致性 (6)可供證實之物證不存在與欠缺相關情況證據 (7)犯罪嫌疑人對犯行前後偵訊者以外之人言行與被告的辯解等7項標準。 希望藉由本研究所訂定之標準，提供從事司法實務者在審判審案件時有一清晰客觀的標準，以達成維護公共福祉與保障人權。 / The focus of this study was to describe the dilemma regarding the abusive use of confessions and its solution. In the past, a great emphasis has been placed in course on the confessions of the accused. However, an overemphasis on confessions may violate the principles of presumption of innocence and just court, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Determining the credibility of confessions has been one of the most controversial issues in the criminal law and in the investigation and trial practice. However, limited studies have explored on this issue. In Taiwan, one of the most well-known cases of injustice is the case of Chiang Kuo-Ching. The primary reason for the injustice was the over-reliance of the court and investigation agency on the confession of Chiang Kuo-Ching. As an inquisitor at the Control Yuan, the researcher was involved in the investigation of the case of Chiang Kuo-Ching in 2003. During the investigation, the researcher began a more in-depth study on the issue of abusive use of confessions. Latin law principles proclaim that “confession is the king of evidence”. Involuntary confessions have been commonly used in the past as a foundation for judicial judgment. However, the strategies for acquiring confessions were not stressed. Torture was used in the past for the acquisition of involuntary confessions, while it is not a current practice. Currently, judges and prosecutors greatly value confessions due to their greater capacity of providing an overall picture of the criminal facts, as compared to other strategies. In many cases, false confessions are commonly present. To understand the causes of false confessions and to develop standardized determining criteria for false confessions, it is critical to explore the psychological impacts of the processes and strategies of acquiring confessions on the criminal suspects. Such exploration will provide an understanding that a confession is the product of the interactive communications between the investigator and the suspect, involving the subjectivity of the investigator. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the credibility of confessions and to develop an evaluation criteria based on an analysis of the case of Chiang Kuo-Ching. A Japanese theory of credibility of confessions, research findings, current practice in Taiwan and the case of Chiang Kuo-Ching were used to develop credible evaluation criteria for confessions. Due to the restriction from the military trail law placed on the case of Chiang Kuo-Ching, appeal to the Supreme Court was not permitted. Several elements of the confession of Chiang Kuo-Ching were questionable, such as the highly stressful interrogation environment for the confession, and the inconsistency between the confession and evidences. The case of Chiang Kuo-Ching is a typical case of secret interrogation, which generates great controversial on the voluntary nature of confessions. Due to the difficulties in obtaining evidences for voluntary confessions, the requests to acquire evidence for voluntary confessions were denied by the military court. This is the greatest problem related to the practical operation of voluntary confessions. Currently, there are no standardized evaluation criteria to review the credibility of confessions, which has been a common issue in the practical judicial operation. Derived on the literature and practice experiences, the researcher proposed the application of seven criterions in the evaluation of the credibility of confessions: (1) process of acquiring confessions, (2) rationality of changes in the contents of confessions, (3) existence of criminal experiences, (4) exposure of secrets, (5) consistency between the confessions and objective evidences, (6) lack of evidence to proof the crime of the accused, and (7) the words and actions of the suspect toward the individuals other than the investigators before and after the crime, and the argument of the defendant. The finding of this study will provide an objective and standardized criteria for judicial practice for the purposes of protecting public welfare and human right.

Cette thèse a pour objectif d’étudier les mécanismes par lesquels des expertises judiciaires sont conduites dans lecadre d’un procès afin d’assurer une recherche d’information préalable à la prise de décision du juge. Nous analysonsl’efficacité du recours à des mesures d’expertise en nous basant sur deux critères : le coût que les expertises font pesersur le système judiciaire et l’impact des expertises sur la qualité de la prise de décision du juge. Les travaux réalisésse divisent en quatre grands thèmes.Premièrement, nous étudions les incitations de l’expert judiciaire et nous mettons en évidence l’existence de problèmesd’aléa moral et de sélection adverse dans la relation qu’entretiennent le juge et l’expert. Deuxièmement, nous offronsune vue comparative de deux grandes catégories de procédures dans le contexte desquelles une expertise peut êtredemandée : la procédure inquisitoire et la procédure accusatoire. Notre objectif est de déterminer quelle procédureest préférable, compte tenu des deux critères d’évaluation de l’expertise judiciaire que nous avons précédemmentcités. Troisièmement, nous étudions spécifiquement le problème d’aléa moral existant dans la relation qui lie l’expertau juge, cette relation s’articulant autour du travail de recherche réalisé par le premier et du contrôle exercé par lesecond. Quatrièmement, nous mettons en évidence que des conflits d’intérêts de la part de l’expert, ou l’utilisationd’une méthodologie biaisée dans la conduite de ses travaux d’expertise, peuvent entraîner des erreurs dans la prise dedécision. Dans ce contexte, nous tentons de déterminer dans quelle mesure la présence d’un mécanisme d’appel peutpermettre de réduire les effets pervers d’un potentiel biais dans les résultats de l’expertise. / The objective of this thesis is to study the mechanisms by which an expert, who is appointed by the judge or by aparty to search evidence, may contribute to increase the quality of the judicial decision-making. We use two criteriato study how the use of experts may benefit to the judicial decision-making : the cost of expertise and the cost oferrors due to incorrect decisions by the judge. Our work is divided into four chapters.Firstly, we study the judicial expert’s incentives and we highlight the existence of moral hazard and adverse selectionproblems in the relationship between the judge and the expert. Secondly, we offer a comparative view of two differentcategories of procedure in which experts may be appointed : the inquisitorial procedure and the adversarial procedure.Thirdly, we study more specifically the relationship between the judge and the expert, when the judge exerts a controleffort and the expert exerts a research effort. Finally, we highlight the consequences of potential conflicts of interestsfrom the expert, or the consequences of a bias in the methodology used to conduct the expertise. Such conflicts ofinterests or bias may create some errors in the decision-making. In this context, we investigate how the presence ofan appeal mechanism may reduce the adverse effects of a potential bias in the results of the expertise.

Une condamnation pénale définitive ne peut en principe plus être remise en cause. La chose jugée doit en effet être tenue pour vraie. L’adage non bis in idem et les principes de l’autorité et de la force de la chose jugée semblent dès lors interdire de rouvrir le procès pénal. Toutefois, le législateur français prévoit deux procédures distinctes permettant de remettre encause la condamnation prononcée : la révision et le réexamen. Les conditions de mise en oeuvre de ces procédures et leurs spécificités en font des procédures très exceptionnelles. Par la présentation d’éléments nouveaux de fait pour la révision, et de droit pour le réexamen, le requérant peut dans certains cas prétendre à nouvelle étude de son affaire. Cependant cette réouverture ne pourra être décidée que par une juridiction ad hoc et sera de type différent selon le nouveau procès envisagé. De plus, l’issue de ce nouveau procès pourra permettre de maintenir la condamnation en dépit des nouveaux faits présentés ou reconnaître l’innocence du condamné. / Final sentencing in a criminal trial cannot in principle be questioned any more. Indeed the adjudged case has to be considered as definitely settled. The non bis in idem Latin saw and the res judicata tenet thus seem to preclude the re-opening of a criminal trial. And yet, lawgivers put in place two distinct legal processes that enable French citizens to challenge their sentencing: reviewing and re-hearing. The conditions for carrying out these processes and their own specifities make these proceedings quite exceptional. Through the presentation of new evidence for reviewing, and because re-hearing can be considered as of right, convicted people may in some cases get a new trial. Nevertheless only an ad hoc jurisdiction can decide upon a new hearing and the latter will be of a different kind depending on the new trial at hand. Moreover, the upshot of this new trial will make it possible either to maintain the sentencing notwithstanding new evidence being presented to a new court or to declare the defendant not guilty.