|
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) was set up in 1997, by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The CCRC investigates alleged miscarriages of justice, post-conviction and post-appeal, and has the power to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. We held a one-off evidence session on the work of the CCRC in January 2014, and then sought some views on the issues raised. We subsequently decided to hold an inquiry on the CCRC, and launched it with a general call for evidence.
The 'real possibility' test, which requires that for a referral to be made there must be a real possibility that the conviction or sentence would not be upheld on appeal, was one of the most controversial aspects of the CCRC. We found that criticisms broadly fell into one of three areas: that the test itself is wrong; that the test is being applied incorrectly by the CCRC; or that the Court of Appeal's approach to criminal appeals is overly restrictive. Our Report considers each of these areas in turn.
Critics of the test felt that it inherently prevents the CCRC from being truly independent of the Court of Appeal. We conclude that any change would have to be in light of a change to the Court of Appeal's grounds for allowing appeals.
We were told by the CCRC that the 70% success rate of its referrals showed that it was applying the test correctly. We also took account of academic research which had found that the CCRC was applying the test as it anticipated the Court of Appeal would do. Despite this, we are convinced that, given the importance of overturning miscarriages of justice, there is room for the CCRC to be less cautious in its application of the test, and we recommend that it alter its approach accordingly.
We were told by some witnesses that the Court of Appeal, especially in the absence of fresh evidence, was overly reluctant to interfere with properly delivered jury verdicts. In our Report we consider the jurisprudence on this matter, and conclude that it is concerning that there is no clear or formal mechanism to consider quashing convictions arising from decisions which have a strong appearance of being incorrect. We therefore recommend that the Law Commission review the Court's grounds for allowing appeals.
We also considered whether increased use of the CCRC's power to refer cases to the Secretary of State for application of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy would be a solution to any of these problems. We conclude that it would not, as it would bring the executive back into the process in precisely the manner the creation of the CCRC was intended to avoid, and would be inappropriate and inadequate for a falsely convicted person.
Our Report also contains a consideration of the adequacy of the CCRC's resources, powers and working practices. We recommend that the CCRC be granted additional funding in order to reduce the backlog in applications, alongside a discretion to refuse to investigate certain categories of cases so that it can better focus its resources on more serious and deserving cases.
Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 gives the CCRC the power to require public bodies to disclose documents and other material to it to assist in its investigations. We were told that the lack of a time limit or sanction connected with the power leads to excessive delays and even failures to comply on the part of some public bodies. We were also told by the CCRC that the fact that it had no power to require disclosure on the part of private bodies had hampered some of its investigations. We recommend that legislation be brought forward to rectify both deficiencies.
Some witnesses told us that the CCRC's investigations were of a poor quality. On the other hand we received academic evidence which disputed these claims. We express concern about variations in approach and expertise between Case Review Managers, and say that there remains room for improvement even within the CCRC's resource constraints, including in its level of engagement with applicants such as through meeting with applicants more often, and we recommend accordingly.
We also recommend that the CCRC take advantage of its unique position and develop a formal system for feeding back into the criminal justice system on the causes of miscarriages of justice.
In this Report our overall conclusion is that the CCRC is performing reasonably well, with areas for improvement identified, but that it could be doing more to increase understanding of its work. We also say that the Commission needs to be given the resources and powers it requires to perform its job effectively. It remains as important and as necessary a body as ever.
| 
