APPENDIX 2
Memorandum submitted by Christopher Moody
It was my understanding that the CCRC was set
up to investigate suspected miscarriages of justice in England
and Wales.
The information pack suggests that the CCRC
will investigate all miscarriages thoroughly and independently,
however the reality seems not to suggest this at all. The CCRC
only look at the evidence presented to them by the applicant,
and in the case where this applicant submits an inept application
for whatever reason, maybe he or she, does not fully understand
the way the CCRC works, or that they have had no help in submitting
their application, the application is often refused, this could
also incorporate when the applicant does not know that he or she
can ask for the CCRC to investigate specific lines such as cell
confessions, and other specific points within a case.
The CCRC should take a look at all cases presented
to them and where appropriate, investigate each case, however
long this may take. They should not worry about clearing up their
backlog of cases at a speed that undoubtedly causes genuine cases
to be overlooked. I think one way this could be achieved is for
the case worker of each case to have more contact with any new
applicant so as to ascertain as much information as possible before
the case is put through the screening process.
The other way this could be achieved without
any obstacles would be for the CCRC to have much more information
for any potential new applicant of how the CCRC works and what
they need to assist them with the assessment of each case. This
would assist both the CCRC and the applicant, speeding up the
whole process.
It would serve the CCRC to have cases that only
need one assessment and could be successfully dealt with instead
of having a growing culture of cases that are originally put to
them with inadequate information as a result of lack of information
for any new applicant. This would stop the clogging of the system
with cases that are looked at more than once by the CCRC because
the applicant was not sure what the CCRC needed and was therefore
told to re-apply to the CCRC when they had the correct information
and evidence required by the CCRC to assess any case thoroughly.
In the cases where the applicant has to re-apply
it would make more sense to be able to access the same case worker
you originally had. This would free many hours of covering ground
already covered and could result in a drastic reduction in waiting
time.
The way the CCRC prioritise cases, from petty
crime to the more serious of cases such as murder, seems to be
that the CCRC take a view that the bigger the crime and the bigger
the sentence, the longer you can wait for an investigation or
at least a screening. Is it not fair to say that cases of such
gravity like murder or robbery should get the same treatment as
those of the lesser offences? If a case such as mine, where I
have been wrongly convicted of murder on such thin evidence as
a single cell confession, were assessed properly, it could be
said that I have more to lose by spending a greater length of
time in prison wrongly convicted, and at the side of a crime where
the applicant is more than likely to have already been released
been released by the prison after completing their sentence. It
would make better sense to have a different system so as to enable
the length of time the applicant is serving is taken into account
and not discriminated against by the fact that the applicant is
serving a longer sentence.
It could also be said that in the cases where
the applicant is of high profile due to length of time already
served, as in the case of Mr Steven Downing, or the high profile
case like that of the school teacher who was convicted of the
murder of his step daughter Billy Joe Jankings, are propelled
through the CCRC at an alarming speed, should the same necessity
not be shown for all cases of probable miscarriages of justice.
If a case was as clear cut as the CCRC would
like before they take it on, is it not fair to say that this case
would in fact reach the appeal court without the CCRC pushing
it along, and if this is the case then is the CCRC only looking
for cases that will give them both an easy time and a good success
rate with the cases they take on, and again if this is the case
does this not undermine the whole purpose that the CCRC was set
up for.
In essence the CCRC should give all cases the
same amount of consideration and investigation, whether the case
be high profile or just another case that may be a miscarriage
of justice.
In my experience as a person of past criminal
convictions, once you are convicted of a crime, whatever its nature,
the book of help is made ever more difficult to enter into, and
where the victim is not only the person the crime has been committed
against, but is also the person that has been sentenced, there
needs to be a reliable organisation that you can turn to for help,
and when you do, trust that they will abide by their word and
fully investigate your case uncovering every detail that may help
overturn a wrongful conviction and also ensure justice is done
for the victims of all crimes.
My conclusion is that the CCRC needs to be more
forthcoming with its workings and expectations of the sort of
information required to carry out its work. It needs to think
about the people that are applying to it and understand that many
of those individuals are educated to a low standard and often
need great help in understanding applications and expectations.
Making applications simpler could help both
the CCRC with applications and help the applicant to supply the
correct information, ensuring that once their application has
been screened a full and fair judgment can be passed on that particular
case. This would inevitably lead to less cases been referred back
to the CCRC for a second time.
I hope my view of the CCRC is of some benefit
to your hearing, even if it is only a minor point in the whole
document that is helpful to know from a prisoners point of view,
then I am pleased I could offer it to you for your better judgement.
February 2002
| 
