Examination of witnesses (Questions 100
- 117)
TUESDAY 11 APRIL 2000
SIR FREDERICK
CRAWFORD and MRS
GLENYS STACEY
100. I wonder if I can ask you a question which
I may have referred to when you came previously. Perhaps it is
exaggerated but there is a general feeling, a cynical feeling
perhaps, that virtually everyone who goes to prison claims innocence.
To what extent would it be right to say that prisoners will try
to have their cases looked at even though there is hardly any
substance, and I am sure that would be the conclusions of your
caseworkers in the initial stages? Nevertheless it is a sort of
status symbol amongst prisoners claiming their innocence who feel
that there is no harm in trying to refer their case to your organisation
to see if there is any way in which they can get the conviction
set aside. Do you think there is a continuing trend in that direction?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) Being realistic there will
always be a large number who try it on. That is what our eligibility
Stage 1 is to look at and Stage 2 Screen to see whether there
is anything, even the smallest nugget, in what they are submitting.
After that a much smaller number go through to Stage 2. It is
only human nature to try and, I am not making a pun, they have
got time on their hands.
101. It clearly crowds up to a very large extent
the initial stages.
(Sir Frederick Crawford) Yes, that is right.
Chairman
102. Thank you. Sir Frederick, can we turn to
your use of Investigating Officers. You have got powers to do
this and you can select them from the police, the Serious Fraud
Office or whatever. Are you surprised at the small proportion
of cases in which Investigating Officers have been appointed,
particularly in the light of the high rate of referrals which
have resulted?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) When we started we had no
idea how much we would use Investigating Officers and whether,
in fact, they would always be drawn from the police. A certain
number of cases that have required either the special expertise
or the special powers of the police have come up and in each one
of those cases we have appointed an Investigating Officer. The
fact that it has turned out that they have virtually all been
referred to the Court of Appeal has perhaps surprised us a little
bit. There are some cases outstanding where we are not minded
to refer the case and that near-100 per cent record may very well
not last much longer. It has worked out as being a high proportion.
We have not thought that there is a large number of additional
cases that we should put out to IOs. It has been helpful to us
in a way that those have resulted in references because one of
the worries before the Commission got started was that we would
make excessive use of the police and that the police investigating
police would lead to some dubious results or unsatisfactory investigations.
It is nice to have a few testimonials on our file from people
saying that they were wrong about that, and they appreciate very
much the way in which we have used the police judiciously and
have admired the quality of the work that they have produced for
us. We do work at it. We do interact strongly with any Investigating
Officer who is appointed. We construct a brief for them. We make
sure that whatever they write for us is drafted in a form where
any public interest immunity implications are absolutely minimal
so that we can put that report out and we do not have to hide
it. There may be occasional items where informers are involved
or some clandestine surveillance has taken place or something
like that, whatever it is. We try to avoid any exclusions from
our reports and that has given people a lot more confidence in
what we have done.
103. So it is not that you have been reluctant
to use these people, it is just that you use them where you feel
appropriate?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) The police have been very
co-operative. In one or two cases we have put a very high load
on them in terms of resources. In one case we had a 2,000-page
report in a lengthy case which was one, in fact, that went to
the Court of Appeal and failed. It was a reference. We are generally
very satisfied and our stakeholders have been very satisfied.
104. Have you had any experience of the police
being not as co-operative as they should have been on financial
or other grounds?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) It is very hard for them
not to co-operate because—
105. They are picking up the tab.
(Sir Frederick Crawford)—there is an ex-Detective
Chief Inspector at the Commission working to chase these things
and make sure that they do the job we ask them to do.
106. You are satisfied with the way that is
working?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) Yes.
107. Good. What use have you made of your powers
to appoint non-police IOs?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) None up to now.
108. None up to now. Again, because you felt
that the police were more appropriate?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) It has worked out in those
cases that the original investigations were done by police so
there is no other agency we would particularly call on. That option
is open and there to be used but we have not had an occasion to
use it.
109. Do you find it a constraint within your
budget in seeking expert advice, say, from forensic scientists
to check on DNA evidence and psychologists to examine mental health
issues and the rest of it?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) It has not been a constraint.
In fact, we spend far more on getting transcripts than we do on
that. In the early days the Home Office accepted the idea that
there would be a contingency budget if we ran into trouble. I
think what we had at the back of our minds at that time was a
major fraud case. If that were to occur we could go to them for
some supplementary funding, we would not be expected to find it
within our budget. That has not arisen. We have had fraud cases
but not huge ones involving hundreds of thousands or millions
in expert fees. We have managed to cope within our budget. I think
it is tens of thousands that we are talking about, not even hundreds.
(Mrs Stacey) Ninety thousand.
(Sir Frederick Crawford) Ninety thousand.
110. Thank you. Do any of your Commissioners
or Case Review Managers have any training in forensic testing
techniques?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) They have certainly acquired
some expertise and a couple of them have been invited to speak
at two conferences in America quite recently. We have acquired
some expertise. Some of the Commission members already had some
experience. We are not competitive against the experts of the
Forensic Science Service.
111. No, of course not. Can I just ask about
liaison, private discussions with lawyers practising in this field
and indeed judges who are perhaps around the Appeal Court. Would
it be proper for you, not on cases of course, to get some feedback
as to what they make of the way your applications are presented
because clearly this can help or hinder the work, say, of the
Court of Appeal?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) We can make the inference
that our Statements of Reasons are of great value to them because
they quote them regularly and in one or two cases have gone out
of their way to say how useful they have been. They have also
used a tactic which is where the defence has not made perhaps
as much as they could out of some of our points the judges themselves
have raised them and rebutted them, or promoted them in the case
of Bentley. There is plenty of evidence there that they approve.
The only one in which I think we had a fairly negative comment
was to do with sentencing where it was felt that we had submitted
something where really our view boiled down to the fact that the
sentence was too harsh rather than in any sense wrong. It was
within the margin of the discretion of the judge and therefore
it was not a good reference. I think that is the only serious
one.
112. Thank you, Sir Frederick, and Mrs Stacey.
We find these sessions valuable because the whole area, as Mr
Winnick has said, is an extremely important one against the background
that, if you like, gave you birth. I promise you we will direct
some questions to the Lord Chancellor about what I will call the
other bit of your job.
(Sir Frederick Crawford) It was timely to appear just
as we are producing the Annual Report. The sorts of questions
you have asked us will be reflected and there will be echoes of
them in the way we handle the Annual Report. I am told that I
gave you one piece of inaccurate information about the Burnett
case. It was dismissed at Stage 1 because there had been no appeal.
That was before the evidence came out that the police dealt with.
Mr Winnick
113. I wonder if I can pursue the Burnett case.
You told us that the secretary to the Commission has informed
you, as I understand it, that Mr Burnett's case was referred to
you.
(Sir Frederick Crawford) The meaning of my answer
was that we were not the people who referred that case and we
never considered it in detail.
114. But it was referred to you?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) That is right. It was excluded
at Stage 1 on ineligibility grounds, he had not appealed. The
impetus towards that appeal came much later with the police having
turned up the evidence in another case. That was how it came about.
115. So he decided not to pursue it beyond Stage
1?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) It was ineligible.
116. He could not because he had not lodged
an appeal?
(Sir Frederick Crawford) That is right.
117. Did he give any reason why he had not lodged
an appeal?
(Mrs Stacey) In fact, Mr Winnick, it was simply a
telephone call to one of our legal advisors with an enquiry as
to whether or not he would be eligible. He was given the standard
information which is that one would normally look for new evidence
or argument in appeal cases and where there was no appeal it would
be exceptional circumstances. We never actually received an eligible
application from him or on his behalf.[18]
(Sir Frederick Crawford) That was the
meaning of my answer that it all came much later.
Mr Winnick: It clarifies the position, thank
you very much.
Chairman: Thank you again.
18 Note by witness: The circumstances were as
follows: Mr Burnett applied in 1998 (Case Ref 841/98). He had
not appealed, so his case was ineligible unless exceptional circumstances
applied. His solicitors pursued the matter of an appeal with the
Court of Appeal. They were telephoned on 16 November 1999, and
said that Mr Burnett had been granted leave to appeal. The Commission
then closed the file. Back
| 
