We have covered here, here and here the criticisms of the UK’s CCRC, coming from the Innocence Network UK.  Now Richard Foster, Chair of the CCR responds.   Original link here:

The Gazette article about the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) was both biased and inaccurate. It was based largely on a symposium organised by Michael Naughton of the Innocence Network UK (INUK) to discuss reform of the CCRC. The CCRC was not invited to this event.

The article ignored anything other than negative criticism of the CCRC heard at INUK’s symposium. This is particularly surprising when you consider that one of the event’s main speakers was no less a figure than Professor Michael Zander. He had been specifically asked to address the question of whether the CCRC lives up to what the Runciman Royal Commission on Criminal Justice envisaged.

Professor Zander is particularly well placed to comment since he was a member of the Runciman Commission. The question is an important one for INUK founder Michael Naughton because much of its regular criticism of the commission has increasingly been based on the premise that the CCRC is not what was envisaged. However, Professor Zander’s answer to the symposium was simply: ‘I believe the CCRC as established by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 does broadly live up to what the Royal Commission envisaged.’

Professor Zander’s paper for the symposium had plenty more to say on the subject. As he explained, INUK’s analysis of the commission’s fundamental ‘real possibility’ test, as set out in statute, is essentially that it makes the CCRC subordinate to the Court of Appeal and fails the innocent. It proposes that the test be replaced with one whereby the CCRC refers convictions ‘if it thinks that the applicant is or might be innocent’. Professor Zander told the symposium: ‘I do not share INUK’s analysis and I do not support its proposals.’ In relation to the claim that the real possibility test means that the CCRC is not independent of the Court of Appeal, Professor Zander’s paper said: ‘I do not think the Royal Commission would have agreed.’

I think Professor Zander is right. In my own view, moving from the safety of the conviction to an ‘innocence test’ would be a reactionary step: it would lessen current protections not increase them. The article also repeated unchallenged some claims that impugned the work of the commission, the quality of our investigations and the professionalism of our staff.

Each case is different

Charges of inconsistency are misguided. As every lawyer knows, each criminal Continue reading →