I’ve covered some of Innocence Network UK founder Michael Naughton’s criticisms of the CCRC here, here and here.
He has a new piece on the problems with the CCRC here, entitled The Criminal Cases Review Commission: Innocence Versus Safety and the Integrity of the Criminal Justice System…
A new piece in The Guardian here, by one of the CCRC’s first commissioners Laurie Elks responds to Naughton’s criticisms. Anyone in a jurisdiction considering a government body to examine alleged wrongful convictions, such as the CCRC, should follow this debate closely. Excerpt from The Guardian article:
As one of the first commissioners of the CCRC, I would advise campaigners such as Naughton to be careful what they wish for. The commission was set up because the Home Office, previously responsible for reviewing alleged wrongful convictions, had so abjectly failed the victims of miscarriage. The CCRC led to a quadrupling of cases referred to the court of appeal; the more rigorous investigation of cases; and the righting of some terrible long-standing miscarriages of justice. While belated justice came too late for Derek Bentley, who was cleared after referral by the commission, dozens of other victims of unfair trials and coerced confessions have had their convictions quashed due to the commission’s diligence.
Naughton argues that the commission routinely looks for nitpicking legal grounds to refer cases, neglecting questions of guilt or innocence. This would be a serious criticism if it were true, but it is not. The best evidence that a conviction is unsafe is fresh evidence throwing doubt on the convicted person’s factual guilt. Evidence of innocence is rarely black and white but it is surely relevant to note the many convictions quashed after revelations of distorted forensic evidence (Sally Clark and Barry George being two of the best-known cases); grossly unreliable witnesses (including some harrowing cases of wrongful convictions for sexual offences); and serious prosecution non-disclosure. Naughton ignores such cases.


