3. Memorandum submitted by Falsely
Accused Carers and Teachers (FACT)
1. FACT is a national organisation which
campaigns on behalf of falsely accused carers and teachers, and
has members throughout the United Kingdom. We are also part of
an increasing network of local, national and international organisations
who campaign for justice for people who have been wrongly accused
of child abuse, including many who are (or have been) convicted
of offences but maintain their innocence.
2. In recent years a number of FACT members
have made applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission
(CCRC) for their cases to be reviewed. Some have been successful,
some have not. This year three FACT members have been particularly
grateful for the Commission's work on their behalf, having had
their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal.
3. What these cases, successful and unsuccessful,
demonstrate is that there is a widespread belief among our members
of the need for a truly independent body such as the CCRC to challenge:
(i) legal assumptions and dated case law;
(ii) investigative malpractice;
(iii) flawed science and biased expert opinion;
and
(iv) the evidential value of believing testimony
related to historic events.
4. It is for the above reasons that FACT
is campaigning for a Royal Commission to look into child abuse
cases where investigative malpractice has been alleged.
5. Given the Select Committee's interest
in this matter it is inevitable that individuals will concentrate
on the negative aspects of the Commission's work. Whilst FACT
as an organisation does have its criticisms of the Commission
we wish to place on record our appreciation of the increasingly
important and difficult work they do—especially in the current
political climate when the pursuit of justice is mostly perceived
in terms which favour "victims" of crime rather than
the pursuit of truth.
6. We also want to acknowledge some of the
problems which the Commission itself has identified in recent
annual reports. These include the impact on service delivery of:
(i) reduced budgets and consequent reduction
in delegated expenditure limits (DELs);
(ii) rising referrals and increasing delays
which cause further backlog;
(iii) reduced percentage of successful outcomes
(in terms of convictions quashed and/or sentences reduced);
(iv) a marked failure to meet its own performance
indicators (especially in relation to their Stage 2 target of
cases completed with 15 months). The actual level of performance
last year ranged from 38% to 77% each quarter—well short
of the 95% target;
(v) repeated failure to reach its minimum
target of 50 Case Review Managers being in post;
(vi) three Commissioners leaving post recently
and not being replaced; and
(vii) the Commission's abandonment of research
and development.
7. We very much hope that when the Select
Committee meets the Chairman of the CCRC some of these matters
will be taken up.
OTHER ISSUES
Evidential threshold
8. The Commission can only operate within
its own legal parameters. At present they can only review and
investigate possible miscarriages of justice and refer cases to
an Appeal Court where there is a real possibility that either
the conviction, finding, verdict, or sentence will not be upheld.
This is in contrast to the test applied in the Scottish Courts
(which is not an issue for this Committee) which is to review
and investigate cases where it is alleged that a miscarriage of
justice may have occurred in relation to conviction, sentence
or both.
9. In our view many of the criticisms which
are levelled at the CCRC and the wider criminal justice system
would be alleviated if the CCRC acting in England, Northern Ireland,
and Wales, adopted the "miscarriage of justice" test
which operates in Scotland. This would obviously require changes
in primary legislation. However, it seems axiomatic to us there
should not be two quite different standards, especially as both
jurisdictions are required to operate within a single European
Court framework.
10. We very much hope the Select Committee
will use this opportunity to seek out the Commission's view as
to whether their cause would be strengthened by such a move.
11. In our view the most critical issue
faced by the CCRC is how best to get at the truth. We therefore
believe there would be some merit if cases referred by the Commission
to the Court of Appeal were developed along the lines of an inquisitorial
system. Whilst this would improve the situation it would not,
however, eliminate miscarriages of justice completely.
Standards of case management
12. Our members have concerns that standards
of case management have deteriorated in recent years. We believe
this has also been noted by the judiciary. As an example we draw
attention to remarks made in (2006) EWCA Crim 1353. This concerns
a case which the CCRC referred to the Court of Appeal on 8 December
2004 in respect of the convictions at Leeds Crown Court of John
Siddall on 29 July 1999, and Ian Brooke on 4 April 2000, for historical
child abuse. They were sentenced to four and 10 years respectively.
In a judgement handed down by the Appeal Court on 15 June 2006
Lord Justice Longmore made serious criticisms of the Commission's
presentation of this case. (See Appendix, especially Paras
1, and 54 to 59 [Not printed].)
13. Whilst FACT has no doubt that this was
an untypical case it nevertheless supports the views of many of
our members that the CCRC are finding it difficult to maintain
the excellent standards for which they have previously been known.
How much this is a one off case, or a temporary resource issue,
or is part of a wider trend, only the Commission can answer.
Issue of delay
14. We also believe the Select Committee
should discuss the issue of delay in taking up applications made
to the Commission, particularly as it is persistently failing
to meet its own targets. In our view the issue of delay has a
disproportionate effect upon prisoners of advancing years. The
Commission rightly give priority to applications from serving
prisoners. However, in our view, they should especially fast track
cases from prisoners who are 70 years or older, or otherwise have
limited life expectancy. We believe such a policy would not have
any significant budgetary implications.
Michael Barnes
FACT National Secretary
2 September 2006
| 
