Further information

The University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP), the first innocence project in the UK, is an extra-curricular pro bono legal clinic which teaches law through working on real cases of alleged wrongful convictions. Established in January 2005 by Dr Michael Naughton, the UoBIP undertakes thorough and objective investigations into cases of prisoners maintaining innocence who have exhausted the normal appeals process and legal aid with the aim of ascertaining the validity of their claims of innocence. Intensely supervised by academic staff and assisted, where appropriate, by forensic scientists and criminal appeal lawyers, the UoBIP assists those who are found to be potentially innocent by making applications and submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to support a referral of the case back to the Court of Appeal. The UoBIP is also the founding member of the Innocence Network UK (INUK) which has actively supported the establishment of 30 innocence projects based in universities across England, Scotland and Wales.

Dr Michael Naughton is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Law and School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies (SPAIS), University of Bristol. He has specialised in the area of wrongful convictions for over a decade and has written extensively on the subject. He is the Founder and Director of the University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP), through which he directs student investigations into real cases of alleged wrongful convictions. He is also the Founder and Director of the Innocence Network UK (INUK) which he established in September 2004 to facilitate casework, research and communications in the area of wrongful convictions.

Ms Gabe Tan is a Research Assistant at the School of Law, University of Bristol. She is the Assistant Director of the University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP) and the Innocence Network UK (INUK). She is one of the founding members of the UoBIP and has led the investigation of Simon Hall’s case since 2006. She has made various submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission on the unreliability of the fibres evidence and other evidential aspects of Mr Hall’s conviction which contributed significantly to the referral of his case back to the Court of Appeal.