Innocence Network UK (INUK) and the CCRC

Dr. Michael Naughton, founder and director of the Innocence Network UK (INUK) has been quite vocal in his criticisms of the British Criminal Case Review Commission, the government agency designated to inquire into alleged wrongful convictions and refer cases back to the Court of Appeals.   Of the most than 13,000 applications it has received since its creation in 1995, less than 4% have been referred back to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings (far less than the CCRC’s predecessor, which was viewed as inefficient and too restrictive).  Naughton’s detailed criticisms of the CCRC process are outlined here and here.  Anyone interested in how Innocence Commissions functions would be wise to become familiar with Naughton’s scholarship on the subject (link to his book and a series of articles here).

INUK is sponsoring a major symposium on the need to reform the CCRC on March 30th, details here.  Speakers include:

Chris Mullin (Former MP)
Professor Michael Zander QC (Emeritus Professor, LSE and Member of the
Royal Commission on Criminal Justice)
Mark George QC (Garden Court North)
Mark Newby (Solicitor Advocate, Jordans Solicitors)
Dr Michael Naughton (Founder and Director, Innocence Network UK)
Laurie Elks (Ex-Commissioner of the Criminal Cases Review Commission)
David Jessel (Ex-Commissioner of the Criminal Cases Review Commission) Professor Richard Nobles (Queen Mary University, London)
Dr Eamonn O’Neill (Investigative Journalist, University of Strathclyde)
Paddy Joe Hill (One of the Birmingham Six)
Susan May and Eddie Gilfoyle (alleged victims of wrongful conviction)
Bruce Kent (Chair, Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence
Russ Spring (West Midlands Against Injustice)

3 responses to “Innocence Network UK (INUK) and the CCRC

  1. WCs appear in the “advanced” legal systems.

    Heaven help those in other ones.

  2. Thank you, Mark. Here in the U.S. we have to recognize that our appeals process has not been effective in identifying or reversing wrongful convictions. The finality doctrine and the reluctance to recognize error and new evidence as “material” contribute. Innocence Commissions and Conviction Integrity Units offer promise of a less restricted true second look at worthy claims of innocence, post-conviction new evidence, and cases with red flags of wrongful conviction. But it seems the jury is still out on the effectiveness of these commissions here and internationally.

  3. Pingback: CCRC Debate in the UK Rages On…. | Wrongful Convictions Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s