5. Memorandum submitted by the Miscarriages
of Justice Organisation
INTRODUCTION
The Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (MOJO)
was founded by Paddy Joe Hill in 1993, two years following his
release from wrongful conviction as one of the "Birmingham
6". Paddy Hill has tirelessly campaigned since his release
for the provision of independent investigations into miscarriages
of justice and for aftercare provision for MOJ victims and their
families.
During its early years, the organisation was
informally structured and embodied a group of people, led by Paddy
Hill, campaigning for change to reduce the amount of miscarriages
of criminal justice.
The organisation has undergone much transition
and structural change over the years, finally settling in November
2002 as a Scottish registered Non-Profit Organisation, Limited
by Guarantee and a registered Charity. The organisation provides
guidance and support to those who claim to be wrongly convicted
in England, Wales and Scotland and monitors the work of both Criminal
Case Review Commission's and their outcomes in both the English
and Scottish Appeal Courts. The organisation has robust Management
Committees and effective monitoring and evaluation tools.
This Memorandum of Evidence is submitted by
Hazel Keirle, Policies officer for the Charity after consultation
with the Managements Committees, Volunteers, Staff and a cross
section of service users.
1. The Criminal Cases Review Commission
was borne of the 1995 Statute but only became operational in March
1997. The Commission has Stewardship of considerable public funds
but there has been no intensive review of its work for seven years.
There is no Ombudsman or Overseeing Committee. This gives Stakeholders
the perception that the Commission answers to no-one which is
damaging to its Mission Statement Claim of Independence. On this
evidence sessions, it is simply not possible to produce in a 1,000
word memorandum, all the concerns that need to be addressed.
A substantial parliamentary review of the
work of the Commission should be tabled at the next available
session to provide stakeholders the opportunity of submitting
extensive evidence.
2. There remains inconsistency amongst the
Commission's staff members on communication and openness. Our
consultees felt that the quality and outcome of case reviews was
"like a lottery" and many of our professional consultees
were of the view that the Commission often "got it wrong".
The Commission's decision making Committees sit in camera and
hence their decisions often attract exactly the same criticism
as its predecessor the C3 division of the Home Office. Challenges
to decisions have to be made in writing and thereby the Commission
deprive themselves of the valuable and skilled oral input of experienced
Criminal Appellant practitioners. Post decision communications
are time costly on the public purse. The Commission's internal
Policies on disclosure of information gathered during a review
are not consistent with the Attorney General's Guidelines or the
CPIA 1996 Act for disclosure during the trial process. Many of
our professional consultees felt this was an area that needed
redress.
3. A statistical comparison between the
English and Scottish Commissions suggests that there may be an
inconsistent approach to case review processes. The English Commission
averages just under 4% of case reviews resulting in a referral
to the Court of Appeal, whilst the Scottish Commission's average
is 10%. Scottish case substantive reviews in the main are completed
within nine months, whilst the English can be double that amount
of time. An analysis of the quantum of public funds over staff
employed, reviews completed and outcomes suggests (not evidences)
that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is providing
better value for money for its stakeholders and a better quality
review process. These anomalies should be addressed as they may
also indicate on forensic analysis, that the Commission is underfunded.
4. Recent changes in legislation (2003 Criminal
Justice Act) mean that cases referred to the Appeal Court should
stand only on the grounds identified within the referral document
and that leave of the Court is required for any additional grounds.
The Court Of Appeals current procedure is that as all work has
already been done by the CCRC, legal aid is routinely not granted
to Solicitors. This effectively means that CCRC appellants now
regard the Commission as being liable for their grounds of appeal
and where appeals fail, there will be adverse criticism of the
Commission and re-applications. The Commission was created to
be wholly Independent and the new statute seriously prejudices
that perception of independence.
The Committee should note that in two recent
CCRC referrals this Charity was left at its own expense with providing
the appellants with back-up legal advice and inter-actions with
Counsel on omission's from the CCRC referral documentation—a
situation that should never arise.
5. Our consultees felt that the Commission
was too wary of challenging the Court of Appeal where it had evidence
that the Court of Appeal had got it wrong. They felt that the
barrier set by the Commission itself on the "real possibility
test" was too high depriving many applicants of an avenue
of judicial redress. The Commission's task of second guessing
the Court of Appeal's mind set on various issues is recognised
as being a difficult one. Astoundingly, (and it has been acknowledged
by the Commission) [27]that
following the failed appeal of the Birmingham Six in 1987, their
case, were it being reviewed today by the CCRC would not meet
the real possibility test criteria and would not be referred.
6. We challenge the Commission's claim that
every case is thoroughly investigated. We accept that every application
is thoroughly investigated but there is a stark difference between
the two. Our experience indicates that the quality and result
of a case review often depends on the quality of the application
made. Poorly presented applications are reviewed by the Commission
and most often result in an early decision Not to Refer. Second
applications are made when the applicant has managed to secure
quality external help and the case has been reviewed again. This
is waste of resource and an anomaly that needs addressing.
7. The Commission's use of their Section
17 Powers to order retention of material is routinely used but
there is evidence that it is not particularly successful. The
Commission's case reviews are often hampered by the loss of relevant
material by Crown agencies. The Commission need to take possession
of the material at a much earlier stage and not rely on Public
Bodies retaining it under the Section 17 order. To our knowledge
no Crown Agency has been sanctioned for their loss of critical
material after a Section 17 Notice has been issued. The loss of
critical material is relevant to the decision making process.
8. The Commission's "Public Image"
is that of an independent body, routing out those cases where
innocent people have been wrongly convicted and ensuring those
people secure an Appeal and freedom.
The reality is that the CCRC has become the
dumping ground for everything that fails in the first instance
in the Courts of Appeal. It is bogged down with often hopeless
applications and sentence appeals all of which reduce resource
and detract from the task that is expected of them by the Public.
9. It is acknowledged that under the current
Chair there has been improvement in communications between the
Commission and external organisations such as MOJO. This is to
be welcomed and encouraged. We acknowledge the difficult tasks
faced by the Commission on deployment of resource.
Hazel Keirle
Policies Officer
4 September 2006
27 Commissioner John Weedon speaking at the SLSA Conference
in March 2006. Back
| 
