UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Nicholas on October 18, 2018, 04:28:13 PM
-
Not sure if anyone saw this earlier in the year?
"Dr Michael Naughton, Reader in Sociology and Law, submitted evidence for a Tailored Review evaluating the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). The review will determine whether there is a continuing need for the organisation, and if so will carry out an investigation into the CCRC’s effectiveness as well as the measures in place to ensure compliance with good corporate governance.
The CCRC, established in 1995, investigates possible miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and refers cases that have been assessed as having a strong potential to be overturned to a relevant Court of Appeal.
Dr Naughton’s appraisal includes an analysis of the CCRC’s statutory functions, whether the delivery of these functions could be improved, its service to applicants and whether appropriate allocation of resources to cases is in place. To read Dr Naughton’s submission online please click here.
Submissions for the call for evidence closed on 14 January. The review is expected to take four months, after which the final report will be published on the gov.uk website.
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/news/2018/michael-naughton-ccrc-submission.html
Worth reading IMO
http://michaeljnaughton.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/MOJ-tailored-review-of-the-CCRC-10-January-2018-my-ID-removed.pdf
Here's the CCRC's annual report 2017/18 https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ccrc-prod-storage-1jdn5d1f6iq1l/uploads/2018/07/CCRC-Annual-Report-2017-18_Web-Accessible.pdf
-
Not sure if anyone saw this earlier in the year?
"Dr Michael Naughton, Reader in Sociology and Law, submitted evidence for a Tailored Review evaluating the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). The review will determine whether there is a continuing need for the organisation, and if so will carry out an investigation into the CCRC’s effectiveness as well as the measures in place to ensure compliance with good corporate governance.
The CCRC, established in 1995, investigates possible miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and refers cases that have been assessed as having a strong potential to be overturned to a relevant Court of Appeal.
Dr Naughton’s appraisal includes an analysis of the CCRC’s statutory functions, whether the delivery of these functions could be improved, its service to applicants and whether appropriate allocation of resources to cases is in place. To read Dr Naughton’s submission online please click here.
Submissions for the call for evidence closed on 14 January. The review is expected to take four months, after which the final report will be published on the gov.uk website.
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/news/2018/michael-naughton-ccrc-submission.html
Worth reading IMO
http://michaeljnaughton.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/MOJ-tailored-review-of-the-CCRC-10-January-2018-my-ID-removed.pdf
Here's the CCRC's annual report 2017/18 https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ccrc-prod-storage-1jdn5d1f6iq1l/uploads/2018/07/CCRC-Annual-Report-2017-18_Web-Accessible.pdf
https://www.fairtrials.org/news/fair-trials-makes-submission-tailored-review-ccrc
https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Fair-Trials-Submission-Tailored-Review-CCRC.pdf
Maybe this needs its own thread?
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Justice/correspondence/Sos-tailored-review-CCRC-10218.pdf
-
The head of the miscarriage of justice watchdog last night claimed that ‘fundamental shortcomings’ on the part of police and prosecution was contributing to a ‘real risk amounting to a near certainty’ that innocent people were in prison.
"Speaking last night, Richard Foster, who stands down as chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) next month, talked about the impact of the disclosure scandal and the ‘widespread and worrying lack grip’ of investigators in the basics of criminal investigation.
‘A lack of grip which is resulting in those who should be brought to justice not being properly investigated, in trials collapsing at the courtroom door or during trial itself; and still worse convictions which prove unsafe and which were entirely avoidable,’ Foster said.
Foster called for the police and CPS to launch their own review of existing convictions. An offer by the CCRC to assist was apparently rebuffed which, Foster said, was ‘disappointing’.
In my view there is a risk that serious miscarriages of justice will go undetected and unrectified as a result.
Richard Foster
The CCRC’s head called on the government to legislate to allow the watchdog to disclose reasons for refusing to refer case. He claims that there were ‘many cases’ that the CCRC had looked out and rejected where their investigation turned up new evidence which bolstered the prosecution case that been been disclosed to the applicant and their lawyers in a statement of reasons but which the public never understood. Under the commission’s governing statute, it is not allowed to disclose such information. Foster said that the restriction was an ‘obvious reputational issue’ for the group.
Foster said he would myself like the Commission ‘to be able to be more open about what reviews have covered and what they’ve found’. ‘This would require a change to legislation. But I think such a change would be both timely and desirable,’ he said.
Foster was critical of the press’s support for what he called ‘celebrity cases’ saying there was ‘little if any correlation’ between media profile and the likelihood of its being ‘a genuine miscarriage’. ‘I can think of high profile cases where no basis has been found for supporting a referral, where investigation has actually strengthened the case against the accused or even where the convicted person, having maintained their innocence for years, has subsequently admitted guilt,’ he said.
The CCRC chair also repeated his support for a review by the Law Commission of the Court of Appeal’s grounds for allowing appeals which was a recommendation of the the House of Commons’ 2015 review of the commission. That recommendation was rejected by the then Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove – see here.
Earlier this year the former appeal judge Sir Anthony Hooper argued that the watchdog had become more cautious because the court had set the bar higher than it had been in living memory. ‘It’s become much more difficult for an appellant to succeed…and, therefore that will no doubt influence [the CCRC] on what cases that they send through,’ he told BBC’s Panorama earlier thisyear.
‘If we do after long and careful deliberation conclude that there really is no realistic likelihood of the court quashing a conviction, what useful purpose would such a referral serve other than to raise false hope in the convicted person and pointless pain and concern to the victim, their friends or family?’ Foster said.
However, he said whether the Court of Appeal was ‘unduly restrictive’ in its approach to safety was a separate issue, in particular, in relation to ‘lurking doubt’ cases. ‘We are on record as saying we would welcome such a review,’ Foster said.
Last year the CCRC referred just 19 cases back to the Court of Appeal last year out of a total of 1,439 applications and in 2017 it referred only a dozen. In its latest annual report, the watchdog has cited a ‘low success rate’ in the Court of Appeal and a lack of lawyers willing to represent applicants as a result of legal aid cuts as contributing to the recent marked drop-off in referrals. Over its 21 year history the CCRC has referred on average 33 cases a year.
According to Foster, over the 20 year lifetime of the Commission its referral rate has been 2.7% ‘Some people think that a low rate,’ he said; before noting that four out of 10 applications were from those who have not exhausted their normal rights of appeal or were otherwise ineligible. ‘And if we look at our referral rate against these cases it nearly doubles to over 5%. Is that percentage surprisingly low; or worryingly high?’ he asked.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/serious-miscarriages-of-justice-will-go-undetected-says-ccrc/
-
The CCRC’s head called on the government to legislate to allow the watchdog to disclose reasons for refusing to refer case. He claims that there were ‘many cases’ that the CCRC had looked out and rejected where their investigation turned up new evidence which bolstered the prosecution case that been been disclosed to the applicant and their lawyers in a statement of reasons but which the public never understood. Under the commission’s governing statute, it is not allowed to disclose such information. Foster said that the restriction was an ‘obvious reputational issue’ for the group.
Foster said he would myself like the Commission ‘to be able to be more open about what reviews have covered and what they’ve found’. ‘This would require a change to legislation. But I think such a change would be both timely and desirable,’ he said.
Foster was critical of the press’s support for what he called ‘celebrity cases’ saying there was ‘little if any correlation’ between media profile and the likelihood of its being ‘a genuine miscarriage’. ‘I can think of high profile cases where no basis has been found for supporting a referral, where investigation has actually strengthened the case against the accused or even where the convicted person, having maintained their innocence for years, has subsequently admitted guilt,’ he said.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/serious-miscarriages-of-justice-will-go-undetected-says-ccrc/
The Jeremy Bamber and Simon Hall cases respectively spring to mind *&^^&
-
Miscarriage watchdog blames drop in referrals on ‘low success rate’ in Court of Appeal and lack of lawyers willing to take cases on
"The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred just 19 cases back to the Court of Appeal last year out of a total of 1,439 applications in what it described as ‘a challenging year’. In its annual report published yesterday, the miscarriage of justice watchdog has cited a ‘low success rate’ in the Court of Appeal and a lack of lawyers willing to represent applicants as a result of legal aid cuts as contributing to the recent marked drop-off in referrals. Over its 21 year history the CCRC has referred on average 33 cases a year but last year the Birmingham-based group hit an all-time low sending only a dozen cases back to the appeal judges.
Of this year’s 19 referrals, a total of eight concerned asylum seekers convicted of entering the country with false documentation. Even with the asylum cases, the CCRC’s referral rate is just 1.23% down from an average of 3%. Over the last 12 months, six appeals were heard in relation to CCRC referrals; four convictions were quashed; and one conviction upheld.
In the introduction, the chief exec Karen Kneller called the group’s elimination of its backlog ‘a significant achievement’. ‘[Money] has been tighter even with standstill budgets and workloads higher than we would have liked,’ she wrote. The Commission identified as a ‘major threat’ to its achieving its aims ‘the securing of sufficient resources’ from Government. Over the last year the CCRC has cut the waiting time for a review to start from 22 weeks for those in custody to a maximum of 13 weeks for all cases. The time taken for an initial decision to be made on review was almost 33 weeks as compared to a 28 week target.
Kneller suggested that most applicants were more concerned with the CCRC’s waiting times than having their convictions overturned. ‘Outside of the Commission people tend to focus on the number of referrals that we make or, even more narrowly, on a tiny handful of high profile cases. Inside the Commission we know that for the majority of our applicants who are unrepresented, the most important thing is the time taken to work on their case and the time we take to complete it.’
The chief exec claimed that the commission had given ‘a great deal of consideration’ to the reasons behind the fall in the number of referrals. ‘[We] need to ensure that we don’t make incorrect assumptions about what may be going on. We do know from experience that a single issue or theme can lead to a high number of referrals. We have seen that to a limited extent in this year’s 19 referrals.’
Since starting work the CCRC has looked into almost 23,000 applications
It has referred around one in every 35 for appeal at an average rate of 33 cases a year
67% of CCRC referrals have been successful
More than 90% of referrals have related to Crown Court cases
Murder accounts for 23% of referrals.
In the past, 68% of applicants have bot had lawyers – that has now shot up to 80%
The CCRC has always denied that it is overly-deferential to the Court of Appeal and that its statutory ‘real possibility’ test forces the Commission to ‘second-guess’ the court; however, this year it acknowledges that it has revised the test in light of an increasingly conservative court. ‘Whilst the “success rate” of our referrals is not directly relevant to the “referral rate”, a low “success rate” may well cause an adjustment in our assessment of ‘real possibility’ in individual cases,’ the report reads.
In the decade up to 2015, the commission’s ‘success rate’ ranged between 61% and 77%; but in 2016, it fell to 53% and again to 46% the following year. It said: ‘During the current reporting year, only six CCRC referrals were considered by the appeal courts. Four appeals were allowed and two were dismissed. This gives a “success rate” for 2017/18 of 66.7%.’
The CCRC also recognised that a lack of lawyers willing to help applicants was hindering referrals. Only a quarter of applicants had a lawyer compared to one third in the past. According to a 2008 study from the University of Warwick, there was a striking disparity between the prospects for success of those applicants with lawyers compared to those without: 82% of represented applicants got their cases past a first ‘screening’ stage compared to only 50% of unrepresented applicants.
‘Good legal representatives undoubtedly have a very important role in CCRC applications. We are concerned that the position with criminal legal aid is having an impact on the willingness of individuals and firms to do pro bono work in potential miscarriage of justice cases. We question whether the current conditions are acting as barriers to new representatives securing funding post-conviction, in which the trial representatives’ advice on appeal (which may or may not be good quality) is a key factor.’
CCRC
The CCRC also cited the ‘lack of a major new theme’ – such past themes included sex offences, ‘shaken baby’ and sudden infant death cases, as well as, asylum-seeker cases (although, as explained above, they were heavily represented in this year’s referrals). It didn’t identify joint enterprise as a theme. The CCRC received around 103 applications following the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2016 in R v Jogee that ‘the law had taken a wrong turn’ in 1984 but only referred its first case last year.
Another trend was how increasingly lawyers who specialise in appeals were challenging CCRC rejections through the courts by way of judicial review. The CCRC was the subject of a total of 38 challenges last year, four more than in the previous financial year. No applications were conceded.
The CCRC chair Richard Foster, who retires in October, attacked the Coalition’s 2014 scheme for compensating miscarriage of justice victims which has ‘all but stopped compensation payments’. The scheme is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court. The issue of compensation was ‘usually seen from the perspective of the individual seeking compensation’. ‘This is entirely understandable,’ Foster continued. ‘But equally important is that the State, and its agents, reflect on errors that they have made particularly where these could and should have been avoided such as disclosure failures or poor investigative processes.’
‘So perhaps those concerned with designing and administering compensation arrangements could usefully focus not just on whether the victim ought to be compensated but also on whether, if a wrongful conviction occurred through clear failure on the part of the State, the State ought to be expected to pay. Not just for the purpose of individual recompense but also to focus minds on failures of the State and its agents in a particular case and accordingly to stop mistakes recurring.’
Foster also warned police and prosecution that they could be held to account for the kind of disclosure failures seen in the Liam Allan and other cases this year. In 2016 the CCRC identified disclosure failings as the ‘biggest single cause of miscarriages of justice’. A complainant’s allegations must be treated with ‘the utmost seriousness and investigated accordingly’. ‘But justice must also be even handed,’ he continued. The prosecution team was ‘under every bit as much of a duty to pursue sensible lines of enquiry which might exculpate the accused as it is to pursue lines of enquiry to build the case against them’, he said. Failure to do so is a failure to act professionally, impartially and in the interests of justice. … Police or prosecutors who are guilty of such professional shortcomings should expect to face commensurate professional consequences.’
https://www.thejusticegap.com/miscarriage-watchdog-blames-drop-in-referrals-on-low-success-rate-in-court-of-appeal-and-lack-of-lawyers-willing-to-take-cases-on/
-
Below is the latest press release from the CCRC.
I find this particular referral interesting and indeed I suspect will prove controversial ..... And wonder if the CCRC have chosen to use this case in order to prove a point to their critics and indeed those whom govern them?
"Gordon Park was cold, selfish and devoid of remorse but not as clever as he thought, says the detective who caught him
The detective who brought Gordon Park, the "Lady in the Lake" killer, to justice after 29 years described him yesterday as a "cold, calculating murderer" who was arrogant, selfish and devoid of remorse
Det Chief Insp Keith Churchman revealed that at the time of Park's arrest a year ago and during two days of interviews, he had in effect taunted the police, suggesting that they would never gather enough evidence to convict him.
In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Churchman, 46, who has served in the police for 27 years, spoke yesterday of his satisfaction at being able to clear the name of Mrs Park, who was 30 when she died.
"The biggest thing for me is that the record has now been put straight and Carol Park's good name has been restored. This isn't a woman who abandoned her children and her husband for another man but instead she was a murder victim, killed by the very man who had wrongly blamed her for all those things.
"We now know that Gordon Park was a cold, calculating murderer, who was a control freak and who was very selfish. Everything he has done since 1976 was for himself - to cover up what he did."
"He was a cold fish and very arrogant. His attitude towards us was, `You prove it' [that he had killed his wife]. In the two days of interviews that followed he had only one concern: self-preservation.
"There was not a flicker of emotion towards his wife and obviously, since he was denying everything, no remorse. He just tried to explain away every piece of evidence we had against him
Mr Churchman suspects that Park was so calculating that he murdered his wife on the first day of the summer holidays so as to give himself the maximum time - the six-week school break - before she would be expected back at work.
"Gordon Park wanted to stall the investigation so he could cover his tracks," he said.
Officers suspect that Park decided to murder his wife because she was threatening to leave him and deny him access to their three children, Vanessa, then 8, Jeremy, 6, and Rachel, 5. In August 1979 Park divorced his wife on the grounds of her desertion.
During his interviews with detectives, Park explained why he was apparently so little concerned by his wife's disappearance that he had failed to report her missing. "He said that because she had left him so many times before he was not concerned and that he thought she would just come back as she always did. But we were able to prove that she had never left before without letting him know where she was. So this was not the same as before."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1482346/Prove-I-did-it-Lady-in-the-Lake-killer-taunted-police.html
Commission refers the murder conviction of Gordon Park to the Court of Appeal 26th October 2018
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Gordon Park’s murder conviction to the Court of Appeal.
Gordon Park was convicted in January 2005 at Manchester Crown Court for the murder of his wife, Carol Park, 29 years after she went missing in the summer of 1976. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Carol Park’s body was found by amateur divers in Coniston Water, Cumbria, in 1997 and the case became known as the Lady in the Lake murder. (See below for a detailed chronology of the case).
Mr Park appealed against his conviction but the appeal was dismissed in November 2008. Little over a year later, on 25 January 2010, he committed suicide in his cell at HMP Garth in Lancashire. In November 2010 members of Mr Park’s family applied on his behalf to the CCRC.
Following an exhaustive investigation, the CCRC has decided to refer Mr Park’s murder conviction for a fresh hearing at the Court of Appeal.
The Commission is referring the case because it considers there is a real possibility that the Court will quash the conviction in light of new evidence. In the Commission’s view that real possibility arises from the cumulative effect of a number of matters including:
the non-disclosure of expert opinion undermining the consistent implication by the prosecution that Gordon Park’s climbing axe, Exhibit 1 at trial, could be the murder weapon.
the non-disclosure of information undermining the reliability of a prosecution witness who gave evidence of a prison confession.
new scientific evidence showing that Gordon Park was not a contributor to DNA preserved within knots of the rope used to bind Carol Park’s body.
renewed relevance of expert evidence, presented for the appellant at the first appeal, that a rock found in the lake near Mrs Park’s remains could not specifically be linked to rocks at Bluestones (the Parks’ home).
The Commission’s painstaking and detailed review has considered numerous issues and lines of enquiry and involved several visits to Cumbria, interviews with multiple witnesses old and new, the use of cutting edge DNA testing and the investigation of multiple potential alternative suspects.
During the review we have used our section 17[1] powers dozens of times to obtain material from the Forensic Archive, seven individual police forces, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, prison authorities, the Probation Service, and a number of other government agencies and public bodies.
Chronology of the case
Carol Park went missing in the summer of 1976 having been last seen in mid-July.
In August 1997 human remains were found by amateur scuba divers in Coniston Water, Cumbria. The remains were found at a depth of 24 metres, about 200 metres from eastern shore of the lake; they were tightly wrapped in bags and bound with knotted ropes. The body was later confirmed as that of Carol Park.
Gordon Park was arrested following the discovery of the body and was charged with Carol Park’s murder. The prosecution was discontinued in January 1998 on the basis that there was no realistic prospect of a conviction on the evidence then available.
New evidence came to light following the broadcast in September 2000 of a TV documentary called ‘A Very British Murder[2].
Mr Park was arrested on 13 January 2004 and again charged with murdering Carol Park “on or about” Saturday 17 July 1976.
Media coverage of his arrest generated new information which was used in the case against Mr Park.
His trial at Manchester Crown Court began on 25 November 2004 and the jury heard evidence over 27 days. At 3.45pm on Friday 28 January 2005, after deliberating for nine hours and twenty-seven minutes, the jury, by a unanimous verdict, found Gordon Park ‘guilty’ of Carol Park’s murder.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommended minimum prison term of 15 years.
Gordon Park’s appeal against conviction was dismissed at the Court of Appeal in November 2008.
On 25 January 2010, on his sixty-sixth birthday, Gordon Park took his own life in his cell at HMP Garth in Lancashire.
Members of Mr Park’s family, aided by his legal representatives, applied to the Commission for a posthumous review of his conviction on November 2010.
Mr Park’s family were represented in their application to the CCRC by Mr Maslen Merchant of Hadgkiss, Hughes & Beale Solicitors.
This press release was issued by Justin Hawkins, Head of Communication, Criminal Cases Review Commission, on 07947 355231 or e-mail press@ccrc.gov.uk
Notes for editors
The Commission is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for independently reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.
There are currently 11 Commissioners who bring to the Commission considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.
The Commission usually receives around 1,500 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) each year. Typically, around 3.5%, or one in 29, of all applications are referred to the appeal courts.
The Commission considers whether, as a result of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal. Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.
If a case is referred, it is then for the appeal court to decide whether the conviction is unsafe or the sentence unfair.
More details about the role and work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be found at ccrc.gov.uk The Commission can be found on Twitter using @ccrcupdate and on Facebook at
[1] Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 give the CCRC to obtain material from any public body.
[2] Broadcast on Channel 4 on Tuesday 12 September 2000.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-gordon-park/
-
Continued from above news article...
"Park was first arrested on August 25 1997, 12 days after his wife's body was found by amateur divers. He was charged with murder, kept in jail but released in January 1998 when the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was insufficient evidence to pursue the case.
In September 1998 an inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing on Mrs Park. Ian Smith, the coroner, said of her killer: "I hope that if that person is still alive, which they may be, they have a conscience - and I hope their conscience is troubling them."
Park, however, seemed untroubled by his conscience as he continued to enjoy his retirement and pursue his hobby of sailing.
In January 2002 Cumbria Police began a new, secret investigation into the murder using a team of six officers, headed by Mr Churchman. They were able to obtain new evidence from two men who had been in Preston prison with Park while he was awaiting trail in 1997. Both men, one of whom had been his cellmate, said that Park had confessed to killing his wife.
Detectives also obtained crucial new evidence from an expert in knots, who believed that Park had used the same knots, including distinctive "loop knots", to tie up his wife as he used for sailing and climbing.
Eventually, police were convinced that they had obtained enough fresh evidence to re-arrest Park and, once again, charge him with the murder.
Mr Churchman spoke of his pride yesterday at having brought Park to justice. The killer was jailed for life on Friday by Mr Justice McCombe, who said that because of the aggravating features of the case he would have to serve at least 15 years.
"This is a man who thought he had got away with his crime and yet, nearly 29 years on, as the result of good detective work by a small force, we were able to get a conviction. It is very satisfying to achieve such a first-class result."
Park's children with his murdered wife, Jeremy Park, now 34, and Rachel Garcia, 33, had appeared at the courtroom, apparently to support their father during the trial. Vanessa Fisher, 36, the couple's adopted daughter, was not present.
Ivor Price, 65, Mrs Park's brother, collapsed in court after the verdict. Later he said the past 29 years had been "a living hell, a living nightmare".
He added: "This today has all been about one thing: justice for Carol. Gordon Park said he loved my sister and yet he destroyed her character in that court. I just think he's a very, very evil character.
-
The Lady in the Lake Languished Leagues Below the Surface for 21 years
Posted on July 2, 2014 by lml01
"Carol Price was a boomer baby, one among millions of brand new babies after her father returned home from the war. Carol was adopted and she grew up in the town of Barrow, carolin England. Pretty, brown-haired and brown-eyed, Carol was a sweet girl and lived a happy life with her adoptive family. Pretty and intelligent, Carol enrolled in teacher’s college after high school. Around that time she met Gordon Park, an attractive “man about town” who became smitten with Carol. The two however were very different. Carol was an extrovert, Park the introvert. No matter. Sometimes opposites attractive and it clearly did with Carol and Park. But there was a darker side to Park: he was controlling and aloof. He could turn a cold shoulder to Carol when she displeased him in some small way but Carol remained smitten by her strong, outdoorsy boyfriend and ignored these warning signals.
Park and Carol were married and moved to Leece, a posh village outside Barrow. Park had built a beautiful, modern bungalow for his new wife. Their first few years of marriage were carolreportedly happy although it didn’t last. Two years later, Carol’s sister, Christine, was murdered by her boyfriend, John Rapson. Gordon and Carol adopted Christine’s daughter, Vanessa, who was a year old when her mother died. After recovering from the tragedy, the marriage took a decidedly unpleasant twist. Park was no longer the charming prince Carol thought she’d married. Park demanded a lot of his wife and he refused to allow her to socialize without him. He took her salary and banked it without allowing her access to her own money. In spite of her intellect and former independence Carol was browbeaten and acquiesced to anything her husband demanded. Park forced his wife to partake in ‘wife-swapping’ parties and Carol slept with several men.
Finally in 1974 Carol took a lover. In December 1974, Carol moved out of the marital home and moved to Middlesbrough to live with policeman David Brearley. They met at an Open University summer school. She, her boyfriend and her children moved into a guest house in Littlesburg, at the Lakes. Park drove his family to the house to live, well aware that Carol had a lover. He remained in the car while his family turned and walked away. Over time, Carol told her mother “there is more than one way to be cruel and I’ve always had to obey him.” Too frightened to meet with her husband alone to discuss custody of the children , Carol met with Park in public places. She refused to get into his car gordonwith him except once. Park brought her home in one piece. On two other occasions, Carol ran from her violent husband. During Christmas holiday, 1974 the custody battle between her and Park was ongoing. He controlled her access to the children; it was minimal. Carol’s children were her life. She would be distraught without them. During a custody hearing, Carol admitted to her affair. Park had also had an affair during the marriage but he lied in court and denied it. The judge awarded him full custody of the children. The only way Carol could be with her children was to return to Park and a bitter marriage. Just before doing so, Carol became enmeshed in two lesbian affairs. Hey, this was the 70’s. Carol left Bearley and reluctantly returned to the controlling, angry Park.
Carol lived a very unhappy life for a year after she returned to Park. She mentioned to the landlady that she had only returned to the house to be with her children. The summer of carol-park-2529592501976 arrived. The very first night of her summer holiday, Carol went missing. The landlady noticed her absence but assumed she had gone on holiday alone. As a rule, they didn’t see her often. One day the landlord knocked on the door and inquired politely as to Carol’s whereabouts. Park admitted Carol had been missing for six weeks and he hadn’t reported it to police. Instead, after the landlord checked on Carol, he reported it to his attorney. Park told police he believed she had “gone off with one of her boyfriends.” Police discovered Carol had left her purse, credit cards and wedding rings behind. A police detective asked Park if he could speak to the children. Park refused. Without a body, police couldn’t bring Park in for questioning.
carolEventually, Park divorced Carol on the grounds of “desertion” and twice remarried. Quite unlucky in love you might say. He was often seen sailing on the lake near the bungalow. Park lived a quiet life and kept a low profile. The children, who obviously missed their mother, appeared happy overall and seemed to be treated well. 21 years later, in 1997, two amateur scuba divers went out for a fun dip in Conestin Lake, never expecting to discover a large, suspicious bundle, wrapped in garbage bags and rope. They notified police. Police found Carol’s watery grave and brought her to the surface. Upon opening the bulky bag, police discovered the grisly remains of Carol Park. Carol was a dreadful, unrecognizable mess. Her head and face had been destroyed by an axe. Right away, Park was arrested and questioned for two days. Incredibly, Park had a smart-ass attitude with police, toying with them during the interrogation.
Detective: What was your first thought in your head when she went missing? What were you thinking?
Park: Here we go again.
Detective: Would you like to just explain that?
Park: Not really but I will. It’s when a wife walks out on you, you don’t know where she’s gone or why. It’s a very horrible feeling. It’s just awfully, totally disorientating. No doubt you’ve got experts who can tell you all about that. Happened before….and you wonder what’s going to happen this time and if there’s going to be another boyfriend.
gordonPark was charged with murder and incarcerated in Preston Prison. Within months charges were dropped and Park had once again gotten away with murder. Six years passed. Forensic investigation into the case revealed that Carol had been tied into the fetal position with the same type of rope Park kept in his home for his rock-climbing hobby. A detective compared the type of knot that had been used to tie Carol’s body and the bags around it. Rather than the typical “granny” knot or “reef” knot – a very simply, common knot people use, this was a complex type of knot that only someone familiar with boating or mountaineering would use. Most people are unable to tie this type of knot.
Seven more years passed. A rock found in the lake bed was also linked to Park. A green slate rock was found beneath the body, embedded into the bottom of the lake. This type of rock wasn’t found on or in Conestin Lake, meaning it was from a foreign location. Instead, this rock had been used to weight the body to keep it from rising to the surface. Similar slate was found at the bungalow Park had built for Carol. Interestingly, a type of rock was also found with Carol’s body that wasn’t a match for the rocks at the bottom of the lake. That too had come from the bungalow. And you never knew rocks were so fascinatingly unique, did you?
A cell mate with learning disabilities and a mental age of 9 came forward to tell police that while he was incarcerated with Park for a time, Park admitted to him he had indeed killed his wife. Although the man was mentally disabled, he was utterly certain about Park’s confession. The only time the man was able to lie, in fact, was when he tried to invent stories about himself. He provided an excellent witness for the defense. By January 2004, police had the ropes, rock, Carol’s clothing and the cell mate’s witness statement. They arrested Park again for Carol’s murder. Park had no reaction whatsoever. His main concern was he wished to shower and groom himself before he went to jail. Happily, Park pranced about nude in front of two male policemen before he got dressed. Weird or what?
Park spoke for hours about his knotting expertise, quite happy to brag about his ability. Eventually he realized his mistake and tried to back pedal, claiming sometimes he used ropemountaineering knots and sometimes he didn’t. Park was returned to his cell alone. He paced and talked to himself. He wept. He sat, stood, and paced. This time, 28 years had passed and finally Park was charged and he wouldn’t be released. Amazingly, a couple now contacted police and stated they’d seen Park dumping his wife’s body. John Young had proposed to his wife Joan on that particular day. The two happened to look out over Conestin Lake and Joan joked “I hoped that isn’t his wife he’s got in there.” Imagine that: One man is proposing marriage while another is dumping his dead wife’s body. Bit of a contrast, that.
The jury trial began. Park was a cool cucumber. Park’s composure began to slip over the weeks and he began to lie during questioning. One foolish lie was that Park claimed he hadn’t worn spectacles in 1973 when Carol was murdered, as the Youngs had claimed. But hundreds of photographs during that year showed that he did. More lies of that sort continued. It was determined that Park had smashed Carol in the face with a climber’s pick-ax. He kept her body in the freezer for some days until he disposed of it. When the defense and DA rested, it took the jury 10 hours to return a guilty verdict. Park had killed his wife when he was 32. A the age of 61 he finally paid for it with a prison sentence of life. The lady in the lake had lain languishing for 21 years. She languished for 7 more years until justice was served.
park_letterIn 2009, Park’s third wife Jenny sent him the Prison and Probation Ombudsman’s report. He read about serial killer GP Dr Harold Shipman’s suicide in Wakefield prison. Park assured Jenny he ‘didn’t think it was necessary‘ to be on the [suicide] watch. In November 2008 Park’s appeal into his conviction failed. The following month, at the age of 66, Park committed suicide in his cell. Before his suicide, Park demonstrated behaviour typical of a suicide, by giving his possessions away to other inmates.
Park the Pathetic didn’t mind leaving Carol to languish in the lake for 21 years but he couldn’t live for 5 years in prison. Ironically, he hung himself by ligature and he placed a plastic bag over his head. I suppose there weren’t any rocks available in his cell.
https://krazykillers.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/the-lady-in-the-lake-languished-leagues-below-for-21-years/
-
Doesn't the Park case fall under "celebrity cases" referred to by Richard Foster?
https://www.thejusticegap.com/serious-miscarriages-of-justice-will-go-undetected-says-ccrc/
"A lack of grip which is resulting in those who should be brought to justice not being properly investigated, in trials collapsing at the courtroom door or during trial itself; and still worse convictions which prove unsafe and which were entirely avoidable,’ Foster said.
Foster called for the police and CPS to launch their own review of existing convictions. An offer by the CCRC to assist was apparently rebuffed which, Foster said, was ‘disappointing’.
-
"The head of the miscarriage of justice watchdog last night claimed that ‘fundamental shortcomings’ on the part of police and prosecution was contributing to a ‘real risk amounting to a near certainty’ that innocent people were in prison
And yet they spend their time money and resources prioritising the case of a dead man?
-
CCRC Chair Richard Foster’s farewell speech delivered 10 October 2018 at University College London
https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ccrc-prod-storage-1jdn5d1f6iq1l/uploads/2018/10/CCRC-2150080-v1-Farewell_speech_-_10_October_2018.doc
Worth reading
-
The Jeremy Bamber and Simon Hall cases respectively spring to mind *&^^&
Richard Foster stated:
"A word here about what might be loosely termed “celebrity cases”, cases where there is strong interest by the public and strong campaigning support for what is invariably characterised as an obvious miscarriage of justice. In the Commission’s experience there is little if any correlation between the media profile of a case and the likelihood of its being a genuine miscarriage. I can think of high profile cases where no basis has been found for supporting a referral, where investigation has actually strengthened the case against the accused or even where the convicted person, having maintained their innocence for years, has subsequently admitted guilt. Equally, some of the most shocking miscarriages of justice this Commission has seen have attracted little if any public interest even after the full extent of the miscarriage has come to light
https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ccrc-prod-storage-1jdn5d1f6iq1l/uploads/2018/10/CCRC-2150080-v1-Farewell_speech_-_10_October_2018.doc
-
Richard Foster continued...
"A word about openness. The Commission has considerable, and potentially highly intrusive, investigative powers. These give the Commission the ability to access not only police and security intelligence of the most sensitive kind, but also to look into the most intimate details of people’s private lives. Obviously if we refer a case our review findings, subject to the usual constraints, are available to the Court and so in the public domain. But if we conclude a case and do not refer it, Section 23 of the 1995 Act makes it a criminal offence for us to disclose anything we found during the review, save in the most limited of circumstances, so as to protect the privacy of individuals and to protect sensitive information.
I know that can be a source of frustration to campaigning groups, journalists and others. It can also, believe me, be a source of frustration to ourselves. I can think of many cases we have reviewed which not only found no basis for referral but where our investigation turned up new evidence which strengthened the prosecution case. In our statement of reasons this will properly have been disclosed to the applicant and their legal representatives. But we cannot disclose this new evidence more widely ourselves. And, for obvious reasons, the applicant will seldom want to do so.
In such cases the applicant may continue to maintain their innocence, as they are of course fully entitled to do, perhaps releasing selected parts of our findings – those which support their case – or simply rest on the assertion that our review was not sufficiently thorough and complete. It is extremely difficult for the Commission to respond to this other than in the most general terms. Not only because of the Section 23 prohibition on disclosing anything found in our review but also because the Commission must always keep – and be seen to be keeping – an open mind about cases. Applicants are free to re-apply to the Commission at any time. And if they do so we must be able to consider their new application entirely afresh and in a completely unbiased way.
That said, I do not think the current situation is satisfactory. Apart from the obvious reputational issue for the Commission, we live in an age that places a high premium on transparency; and rightly so. Obviously sensitive personal and security information needs appropriate safeguarding. But I would myself like the Commission to be able to be more open about what reviews have covered and what they’ve found. This would require a change to legislation. But I think such a change would be both timely and desirable.
-
Continued from above news article...
"Park was first arrested on August 25 1997, 12 days after his wife's body was found by amateur divers. He was charged with murder, kept in jail but released in January 1998 when the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was insufficient evidence to pursue the case.
In September 1998 an inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing on Mrs Park. Ian Smith, the coroner, said of her killer: "I hope that if that person is still alive, which they may be, they have a conscience - and I hope their conscience is troubling them."
Park, however, seemed untroubled by his conscience as he continued to enjoy his retirement and pursue his hobby of sailing.
In January 2002 Cumbria Police began a new, secret investigation into the murder using a team of six officers, headed by Mr Churchman. They were able to obtain new evidence from two men who had been in Preston prison with Park while he was awaiting trail in 1997. Both men, one of whom had been his cellmate, said that Park had confessed to killing his wife.
Detectives also obtained crucial new evidence from an expert in knots, who believed that Park had used the same knots, including distinctive "loop knots", to tie up his wife as he used for sailing and climbing.
Eventually, police were convinced that they had obtained enough fresh evidence to re-arrest Park and, once again, charge him with the murder.
Mr Churchman spoke of his pride yesterday at having brought Park to justice. The killer was jailed for life on Friday by Mr Justice McCombe, who said that because of the aggravating features of the case he would have to serve at least 15 years.
"This is a man who thought he had got away with his crime and yet, nearly 29 years on, as the result of good detective work by a small force, we were able to get a conviction. It is very satisfying to achieve such a first-class result."
Park's children with his murdered wife, Jeremy Park, now 34, and Rachel Garcia, 33, had appeared at the courtroom, apparently to support their father during the trial. Vanessa Fisher, 36, the couple's adopted daughter, was not present.
Ivor Price, 65, Mrs Park's brother, collapsed in court after the verdict. Later he said the past 29 years had been "a living hell, a living nightmare".
He added: "This today has all been about one thing: justice for Carol. Gordon Park said he loved my sister and yet he destroyed her character in that court. I just think he's a very, very evil character.
I remember when tey found her body, quite a famous case up here. It was a miracle that they found her.
-
I remember when tey found her body, quite a famous case up here. It was a miracle that they found her.
Gordon Park appears to have been high up on the psychopathy spectrum IMO, similar to Jeremy Bamber.
-
Gordon Park appears to have been high up on the psychopathy spectrum IMO, similar to Jeremy Bamber.
Yep, he almost got away with it though. Same won't happen for Bamber! 8((()*/
-
Yep, he almost got away with it though. Same won't happen for Bamber! 8((()*/
He got away with it for over 2 decades *&^^&
Bambers going no where and he knows it as do the CCRC 8((()*/
-
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/16759455.former-prosecutor-publishes-book-backing-lady-in-the-lake-murder-conviction/
-
Below is the latest press release from the CCRC.
I find this particular referral interesting and indeed I suspect will prove controversial ..... And wonder if the CCRC have chosen to use this case in order to prove a point to their critics and indeed those whom govern them?
"Gordon Park was cold, selfish and devoid of remorse but not as clever as he thought, says the detective who caught him
The detective who brought Gordon Park, the "Lady in the Lake" killer, to justice after 29 years described him yesterday as a "cold, calculating murderer" who was arrogant, selfish and devoid of remorse
Det Chief Insp Keith Churchman revealed that at the time of Park's arrest a year ago and during two days of interviews, he had in effect taunted the police, suggesting that they would never gather enough evidence to convict him.
In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Churchman, 46, who has served in the police for 27 years, spoke yesterday of his satisfaction at being able to clear the name of Mrs Park, who was 30 when she died.
"The biggest thing for me is that the record has now been put straight and Carol Park's good name has been restored. This isn't a woman who abandoned her children and her husband for another man but instead she was a murder victim, killed by the very man who had wrongly blamed her for all those things.
"We now know that Gordon Park was a cold, calculating murderer, who was a control freak and who was very selfish. Everything he has done since 1976 was for himself - to cover up what he did."
"He was a cold fish and very arrogant. His attitude towards us was, `You prove it' [that he had killed his wife]. In the two days of interviews that followed he had only one concern: self-preservation.
"There was not a flicker of emotion towards his wife and obviously, since he was denying everything, no remorse. He just tried to explain away every piece of evidence we had against him
Mr Churchman suspects that Park was so calculating that he murdered his wife on the first day of the summer holidays so as to give himself the maximum time - the six-week school break - before she would be expected back at work.
"Gordon Park wanted to stall the investigation so he could cover his tracks," he said.
Officers suspect that Park decided to murder his wife because she was threatening to leave him and deny him access to their three children, Vanessa, then 8, Jeremy, 6, and Rachel, 5. In August 1979 Park divorced his wife on the grounds of her desertion.
During his interviews with detectives, Park explained why he was apparently so little concerned by his wife's disappearance that he had failed to report her missing. "He said that because she had left him so many times before he was not concerned and that he thought she would just come back as she always did. But we were able to prove that she had never left before without letting him know where she was. So this was not the same as before."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1482346/Prove-I-did-it-Lady-in-the-Lake-killer-taunted-police.html
Commission refers the murder conviction of Gordon Park to the Court of Appeal 26th October 2018
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Gordon Park’s murder conviction to the Court of Appeal.
Gordon Park was convicted in January 2005 at Manchester Crown Court for the murder of his wife, Carol Park, 29 years after she went missing in the summer of 1976. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Carol Park’s body was found by amateur divers in Coniston Water, Cumbria, in 1997 and the case became known as the Lady in the Lake murder. (See below for a detailed chronology of the case).
Mr Park appealed against his conviction but the appeal was dismissed in November 2008. Little over a year later, on 25 January 2010, he committed suicide in his cell at HMP Garth in Lancashire. In November 2010 members of Mr Park’s family applied on his behalf to the CCRC.
Following an exhaustive investigation, the CCRC has decided to refer Mr Park’s murder conviction for a fresh hearing at the Court of Appeal.
The Commission is referring the case because it considers there is a real possibility that the Court will quash the conviction in light of new evidence. In the Commission’s view that real possibility arises from the cumulative effect of a number of matters including:
the non-disclosure of expert opinion undermining the consistent implication by the prosecution that Gordon Park’s climbing axe, Exhibit 1 at trial, could be the murder weapon.
the non-disclosure of information undermining the reliability of a prosecution witness who gave evidence of a prison confession.
new scientific evidence showing that Gordon Park was not a contributor to DNA preserved within knots of the rope used to bind Carol Park’s body.
renewed relevance of expert evidence, presented for the appellant at the first appeal, that a rock found in the lake near Mrs Park’s remains could not specifically be linked to rocks at Bluestones (the Parks’ home).
The Commission’s painstaking and detailed review has considered numerous issues and lines of enquiry and involved several visits to Cumbria, interviews with multiple witnesses old and new, the use of cutting edge DNA testing and the investigation of multiple potential alternative suspects.
During the review we have used our section 17[1] powers dozens of times to obtain material from the Forensic Archive, seven individual police forces, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, prison authorities, the Probation Service, and a number of other government agencies and public bodies.
Chronology of the case
Carol Park went missing in the summer of 1976 having been last seen in mid-July.
In August 1997 human remains were found by amateur scuba divers in Coniston Water, Cumbria. The remains were found at a depth of 24 metres, about 200 metres from eastern shore of the lake; they were tightly wrapped in bags and bound with knotted ropes. The body was later confirmed as that of Carol Park.
Gordon Park was arrested following the discovery of the body and was charged with Carol Park’s murder. The prosecution was discontinued in January 1998 on the basis that there was no realistic prospect of a conviction on the evidence then available.
New evidence came to light following the broadcast in September 2000 of a TV documentary called ‘A Very British Murder[2].
Mr Park was arrested on 13 January 2004 and again charged with murdering Carol Park “on or about” Saturday 17 July 1976.
Media coverage of his arrest generated new information which was used in the case against Mr Park.
His trial at Manchester Crown Court began on 25 November 2004 and the jury heard evidence over 27 days. At 3.45pm on Friday 28 January 2005, after deliberating for nine hours and twenty-seven minutes, the jury, by a unanimous verdict, found Gordon Park ‘guilty’ of Carol Park’s murder.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommended minimum prison term of 15 years.
Gordon Park’s appeal against conviction was dismissed at the Court of Appeal in November 2008.
On 25 January 2010, on his sixty-sixth birthday, Gordon Park took his own life in his cell at HMP Garth in Lancashire.
Members of Mr Park’s family, aided by his legal representatives, applied to the Commission for a posthumous review of his conviction on November 2010.
Mr Park’s family were represented in their application to the CCRC by Mr Maslen Merchant of Hadgkiss, Hughes & Beale Solicitors.
This press release was issued by Justin Hawkins, Head of Communication, Criminal Cases Review Commission, on 07947 355231 or e-mail press@ccrc.gov.uk
Notes for editors
The Commission is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for independently reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.
There are currently 11 Commissioners who bring to the Commission considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.
The Commission usually receives around 1,500 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) each year. Typically, around 3.5%, or one in 29, of all applications are referred to the appeal courts.
The Commission considers whether, as a result of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal. Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.
If a case is referred, it is then for the appeal court to decide whether the conviction is unsafe or the sentence unfair.
More details about the role and work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be found at ccrc.gov.uk The Commission can be found on Twitter using @ccrcupdate and on Facebook at
[1] Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 give the CCRC to obtain material from any public body.
[2] Broadcast on Channel 4 on Tuesday 12 September 2000.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-gordon-park/
What is the CCRC's definition of a miscarriage of justice?
"The CCRC’s investigatory powers and practices
To help us identify new evidence or legal argument we can use our special legal powers under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to obtain information from public bodies such as the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, social services, local councils and so on. Under section 18A of the same Act, we can seek a Crown Court order to obtain material from a private individual or organisation. Our legal powers mean that we can often identify important evidence that would be impossible for others to find.
We can also interview new witnesses and re-interview the original ones. If necessary, we can arrange for new expert evidence such as psychological reports and DNA testing.
We look into all cases thoroughly, independently and objectively but the legal rules that govern the work of the Commission means that we can only refer a case if we find that there is a ’real possibility’ that an appeal court would quash the conviction or, in the case of an appeal against sentence, change the sentence in question.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/what-we-do/
There's no mention of Gordon Park's psychological reports, which I imagine the Crown may be interested in when the case goes in front of the COA judges?
How is it possible to evaluate the psychology of a dead man?
HMC refused to allow expert evidence in relation to Simon Hall's psychology due to the above.
-
Following an exhaustive investigation, the CCRC has decided to refer Mr Park’s murder conviction for a fresh hearing at the Court of Appeal.
The Commission is referring the case because it considers there is a real possibility that the Court will quash the conviction in light of new evidence. In the Commission’s view that real possibility arises from the cumulative effect of a number of matters including:
the non-disclosure of expert opinion undermining the consistent implication by the prosecution that Gordon Park’s climbing axe, Exhibit 1 at trial, could be the murder weapon.
the non-disclosure of information undermining the reliability of a prosecution witness who gave evidence of a prison confession.
new scientific evidence showing that Gordon Park was not a contributor to DNA preserved within knots of the rope used to bind Carol Park’s body.
renewed relevance of expert evidence, presented for the appellant at the first appeal, that a rock found in the lake near Mrs Park’s remains could not specifically be linked to rocks at Bluestones (the Parks’ home).
The Commission’s painstaking and detailed review has considered numerous issues and lines of enquiry and involved several visits to Cumbria, interviews with multiple witnesses old and new, the use of cutting edge DNA testing and the investigation of multiple potential alternative suspects.
During the review we have used our section 17[1] powers dozens of times to obtain material from the Forensic Archive, seven individual police forces, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, prison authorities, the Probation Service, and a number of other government agencies and public bodies. ...
"A PASTOR claims he has been barred from prison - for praying.
Evangelist minister George Harrison, from Swinton, says jail bosses have stopped his visits to friend and convicted murderer Gordon Park. He claims it is because they are angry over a prayer vigil he led for Park outside Strangeways prison, Manchester.
Park was found guilty of the 'lady in the lake' murder in 2005.
He was given a life sentence nearly 30 years after the body of his wife Carol was found in Coniston Water but many still protest his innocence.
Pastor Harrison, of Pendlebury Evangelical Church, is one of those. He made regular visits to Park while he was at Strangeways. On the first anniversary of his jailing he held a vigil outside the prison.
But since Park was transferred to Garth prison in Cumbria the pastor says he has been unable to gain access.
He claims bosses at the Cumbrian jail demand a visiting order which is unfair because it would rob Park of a visit from his present wife. He said: "Since Gordon was moved to Garth I've only been let in once and apparently that was by mistake.
"One of the officials there said it was because of the vigil but I don't understand that because they let me continue to see him at Strangeways after it had taken place.
"I've sent lots of letters to Garth's head of security but I get no response. He has told me verbally that I am 'not what I seem to be' and that me visiting specifically as a pastor 'will never happen here'. It might be more that he is upset with my criticism of Cumbria police's shameful conduct over their investigation into the murder."
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said that each prison retained ministers from various religions 'to ensure that prisoners have every opportunity to practise their religion'.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/prison-ban-on-pastor-for-praying-948512
"In October, campaigners in support of Park said "We have in our possession, a signed, witnessed, statement, made this week, by one of the main prosecution witnesses, stating, ‘police officers did put words in my mouth regarding Gordon Park’ and ‘the police told me what to say in court.’" Pastor George Harrison, acting as a spokesperson for the campaigners, also claimed that the appeals process was flawed and "rendered virtually impossible" due to costs.
Other fronts for the campaign included an offer of £5,000 for anyone providing evidence that led to Gordon's freedom. Included in this were planned adverts in the North-West Evening Mail and leaflets to 20,000 homes in the Furness area. However, this was being organised by Harrison, with whom Gordon and his third wife Jennifer stayed during the trial. Jeremy Park wrote to the North-West Evening Mail to confirm that he wanted nothing to do with the reward, and that Harrison had no right to include his name, contact details or email address, or mention the freegordon website, in the adverts. Subsequently, Harrison claimed to have delivered 6,000 booklets and leaflets in the Furness area.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_in_the_Lake_trial
An inquest has heard "Lady in the Lake" killer Gordon Park accessed an official report into the prison suicide of mass murderer Harold Shipman more than a year before he was found dead in his own cell.
His third wife, Jennie, told the hearing she sent the official Prisons and Probation Ombudsman report into Shipman's death to her husband in July 2008 at his request.
But he did not tell her why he wanted to read about Shipman's hanging at HMP Wakefield in January 2004.
The discovery of the report by prison authorities flagged up concerns for his welfare while he was serving a life sentence for the murder of his first wife, Carol.
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2013-03-19/lady-in-the-lake-killer-inquest-hears-evidence/.
"FROM behind the thick brick walls of Manchester Prison, Gordon Park still hopes to persuade the world that he did not murder his wife.
In a letter to The Westmorland Gazette, the convicted Lady in the Lake' killer said his mind was "still in turmoil" about the ten-week trial that led a jury to find him unanimously guilty on January 28.
"I cannot believe it. I'm devastated," he wrote. "If I knew who killed my wife, how, where, why, then I would have said so. I did not know then. I do not know now."
In what has become an infamous case, Park - the cuckolded husband - is supposed to have smashed his wife's face to bits in a fit of jealousy in July 1976.
The prosecution version has it that he then coldly stuffed Carol Ann Park's trussed-up body into a makeshift sack made from her own pinafore dress before dumping her in Coniston Water. The Lady in the Lake', as she has since become known, then lay undiscovered for 21 years.
It is the stuff of sensational TV crime thrillers and the jury was convinced after hearing the evidence that it was the husband whodunnit'. Yet Park maintains he is innocent and remains incredulous that people can believe he - a school teacher with no record of violence - brutally murdered his wife with an ice axe.
He wrote: "I tried to give simple, direct answers to the questions I was asked in court and not to elaborate or justify and believed the truth would speak for itself. It seems that the jury did not like what they heard."
Nine months into his 15-year sentence, Park has declined any in-person interviews and refuses to answer detailed questions about his case. However, Prisoner NV5678 was happy with a written interview' yet the only matters he said he felt able to discuss freely were about his life on the inside.
These days the keen sailor who loved to ramble in the Lakes has to make do with scenes of Cumbria, Yorkshire, Walney and Dalton-in-Furness stuck to the noticeboard of his 13x6ft cell. They have been secured there with sticky tape Park peeled from the sandwich bags prisoners are occasionally given for lunch drawing pins and Sellotape are banned lest they be misused by violent or suicidal inmates.
He describes it as "legalised sensory deprivation" in a prison that looks just like the TV series Bad Girls or Porridge.
"I hate it. I've always been active, doing something for somebody somewhere. Now I can do nothing. Nothing," he wrote.
Park complained that they were sometimes "banged-up" all day if prison officers failed to show for work or on Bank Holidays. The "outrageous" 10p-a-minute phone calls limited his conversations to his third wife, Jenny, who, he said, "needs all the love and support I can give her." Where once he would enjoy days sailing with his son, Jeremy, on Coniston Water, Park fills his time writing daily letters to Jenny on his Formica desk and fretting about cell mates.
"They may smoke incessantly, play loud music, the TV or video games, rifle your drawers, steal, lie etc. There is not a lot you can do about it," he writes. "I watched a guy "chasing the dragon". It frightened me to death. I had never seen that before."
Now on his sixth cell with an agreeable cell-mate, he enthuses that it has the "luxury" of a plug although the window is fitted with a flap so the inmates cannot see outside. There is a TV and an adjacent room with a flushing toilet and hand basin.
A keen churchgoer, Park attends a Sunday morning Church of England Service and said the chaplaincy "are very good".
"There are often 30-odd burly guys, sniffling away and singing with very hoarse voices. Very poignant."
Park has plenty of time on his hands but declined to say if he was writing an autobiography, files from which were mentioned at the trial (in the jury's absence).
He is making use of his education, studying contemporary politics, and has worked in the prison library and IT workshop. He currently earns a prison salary of £5.45 a week.
On the outside, his son, Jeremy, and daughter, Rachel, refuse to believe their father killed their mother and are working on the Free Gordon campaign.
Jeremy hopes a documentary will be made detailing the ways in which he believes his father's conviction was a cruel miscarriage of justice.
ITV's Real Crime programme is also doing a film about the case although not on the basis that it was a wrongful conviction.
Within a month, supporters also hope to have fresh expert evidence to start the long process of trying to quash the conviction in the appeal courts.
But the police and plenty of other people believe the right man is serving time for the vicious murder of a 31-year-old woman. Whether Gordon Park will ever return to his beloved Lake District as a free man is a matter much in doubt.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170304200011/http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/cumbria/647938.exclusive_convicted_lady_in_the_lake_killer_writes_from_prison/
-
Innocence or safety: Why the wrongly convicted are better served by safety
"The place of innocence in the criminal justice system is obvious - of course it is central to the whole concept of justice. It's not the only issue - most people, for instance, would not be too happy about a guilty person convicted on evidence produced by torture, perjury or forensic trickery - but to those of us involved in tackling miscarriages of justice cases the belief that people have been convicted for crimes they did not commit is the gold standard.
So why, out of some 300 cases where the court of appeal has quashed convictions sent to them by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), only twice have the judges sought fit to say that the appellants were innocent on only two occasions? Why do they use the dry and bloodless description of a conviction being simply "unsafe"? Again, why have they sometimes said that although a conviction is unsafe, and should be quashed, this does not mean the appellant is innocent – "far from it", they added, in one particular judgment?
As a journalist, I believed that those convicted of the murder of the newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater were innocent. I still do. I was delighted when their convictions were quashed, but the court's judgment left me, at the time, with a sour taste in my mouth. Lord Justice Roch, a judge at the appeal court, said: "this court is not concerned with guilt or innocence of the appellants, but only with the safety of their convictions."
He continued: "This may, at first sight, appear an unsatisfactory state of affairs, until it is remembered that the integrity of the criminal process is the most important consideration for the courts which have to hear appeals against conviction."
How could it be held that there was no concern for guilt or innocence?
The Court of Appeal has never been at the cutting edge of PR, and Lord Roch could have put it better. What I now understand him to mean is that the integrity of the system is paramount in that it underwrites our freedoms - including the freedom of the innocent to escape wrongful conviction. Today, however, the issue of innocence in miscarriages of justice still makes campaigners and academic lawyers not only question if the court of appeal cares about innocence, but to level the same charge against the CCRC, where I have been a commissioner since 2000.
If it is the CCRC's job to keep the criminal justice system honest, someone needs to keep us honest, too. That's why we invite our critics to come and talk to us. But by the same token the criticisms have to be honest ones. And the idea that the CCRC couldn't care less about innocence is a dangerous lie.
It is dangerous because if it gains traction the public and the politicians will sideline even further the concern with miscarriages of justice which has already been such a casualty of the policy in recent years of supposedly "rebalancing" the criminal justice system in favour of the victim. It is dangerous because bright and highly motivated law students - such as those in the Innocence Project – are being encouraged to see the CCRC as the enemy of justice rather than its champion.
The CCRC - the first organisation of its kind in the world - was set up in 1997 to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice and, where appropriate, send cases back to the relevant appeal courts for a fresh look. Parliament thought about having a tribunal of the great and the good to override the courts, but decided that it would be better for the integrity of criminal justice if the system was compelled to confront and acknowledge its own mistakes.
To do so, the CCRC needed not just an overwhelming hunch that the appellant should not be behind bars - it needed evidence. New evidence, better evidence than was there at the time of the original trial. After all, if evidence of innocence had been there, in sufficient strength, the conviction would never have happened.
That is why the Act that set us up gave us huge powers to dig for information usually denied to the defendant at trial - all the secrets in the files of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, information from medical and social services files, access into criminal records – including the records of people who may have made false accusations in the past.
Our powers are not a magic key to the chest which holds the smoking gun, but they are the critical to the pursuit of new evidence which, sometimes alongside other evidence which didn't convince the original jury - might give our applicants a second chance for justice.
It's hard and often unrewarding graft, and I don't know a single member of our staff who doesn't open a new file in the hope that some new and decisive nugget of truth will come to light. So when the accusation is made - as it has been – that the CCRC is not interested in factual innocence it is met with a mixture of exasperation and contempt.
Nothing, after all, could be more "unsafe" than the conviction of someone who is "factually innocent". Any such person would be sent back to the court of appeal in the time it would take us to sign the referral papers.
A belief in innocence is no substitute for a proof of innocence. Proof, however, is not that easy to come by. I've been labouring in the vineyards of miscarriages of justice for close on thirty years, and although I know some of my people are innocent I'd be hard pushed to prove it. The discovery of a photograph of the convicted person in Florida on the day he was said to be turning over the Tooting branch of Barclays would be wonderfully helpful in establishing actual innocence. But such a scenario is disappointingly rare.
Indeed, although there's no evidence to link me to the Great Train Robbery I can't actually provide evidence that I wasn't involved. I can prove - as the CCRC has proved - that this particular fingerprint or fibre which figured so large at trial cannot, after all be linked to the person convicted of the crime. But that doesn't actually constitute proof that he or she was not there. What this would prove, however, is that the conviction was "unsafe" - that dreary legalistic formulation which sets the wrongly convicted free.
Fewer innocent people would be freed if the legal criterion was provable innocence rather than unsafety of conviction, if only because it is so damnably difficult to prove. Is this what the campaigners want? If so, be careful what you wish for.
As I was reminded at Sir Ludovic Kennedy's memorial service last month, miscarriages of justice are a magnet to the obsessive. There's just something about the work. And we always need an enemy - be it the corrupt police, the idle lawyers or those frightful old judges.
So I can't really complain if the CCRC (for whose creation I campaigned) is now the convenient enemy of the moment. But I'm unhappy that effort which should be spent on uncovering miscarriages of justice is being channelled, instead, into an naive academic cottage industry and a twee semantic debate.
Sure, we should be chivvied when we seem to be taking forever to reach a decision, or seem too cautious. Sometimes we take so long because we'd rather keep digging than give up on a case. And we're also bound to get it wrong sometimes.
But the CCRC not concerned with innocence? Nonsense - the fact is that to consider the safety of a conviction provides a sterner test for the system and a more useful one for the innocent individual than any test for factual innocence alone ever could
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/15/prisons-and-probation
-
What is the CCRC's definition of a miscarriage of justice?
"The CCRC’s investigatory powers and practices
To help us identify new evidence or legal argument we can use our special legal powers under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to obtain information from public bodies such as the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, social services, local councils and so on. Under section 18A of the same Act, we can seek a Crown Court order to obtain material from a private individual or organisation. Our legal powers mean that we can often identify important evidence that would be impossible for others to find.
We can also interview new witnesses and re-interview the original ones. If necessary, we can arrange for new expert evidence such as psychological reports and DNA testing.
We look into all cases thoroughly, independently and objectively but the legal rules that govern the work of the Commission means that we can only refer a case if we find that there is a ’real possibility’ that an appeal court would quash the conviction or, in the case of an appeal against sentence, change the sentence in question.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/what-we-do/
There's no mention of Gordon Park's psychological reports, which I imagine the Crown may be interested in when the case goes in front of the COA judges?
How is it possible to evaluate the psychology of a dead man?
HMC refused to allow expert evidence in relation to Simon Hall's psychology due to the above.
"Miscarriage of justice is defined and the author argues that the definition should be expanded to include miscarriages of justice that are other than wrongful convictions. Other types of miscarriages of justice include wrongful arrests, ill-prepared attorneys, and harassment by police officers. Two general types of miscarriages of justice are identified as errors of due process and errors of impunity, which are distinguished by whether they impart unfair sanctioning or represent a lapse of justice. Neither type of miscarriage of justice received much scholarly attention before the 1930s and research since then has mainly focused on capital punishment cases. The author describes the Innocence Project, established in 1992 by two law professors in New York, which offers the pro bono services of law students to assist inmates who are challenging their convictions based on DNA evidence. The four articles presented in this volume contribute to the body of research of miscarriages of justice by providing important insights and identifying future research opportunities in the field. References
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=210646
-
Yep, he almost got away with it though. Same won't happen for Bamber! 8((()*/
This looks/sounds like like Bamber to me...,
Multiple applications
"Another factor that may not be apparent to the external obser ver is the sheer volume of repeat applications which the CCRC receives. I came across one case in which the applicant had applied and been refused seven times. The CCRC has had to issue a policy statement about the treatment of such applications, indicating that in extreme cases it will decline to respond to an applicant or insist that any further applications come from a legal representative. However, the process of checking whether the latest submission from a persistent applicant does raise any different point still engages the use of the CCRC’s resources.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/is-the-ccrc-fit-for-purpose/
-
This looks/sounds like like Bamber to me...,
Multiple applications
"Another factor that may not be apparent to the external obser ver is the sheer volume of repeat applications which the CCRC receives. I came across one case in which the applicant had applied and been refused seven times. The CCRC has had to issue a policy statement about the treatment of such applications, indicating that in extreme cases it will decline to respond to an applicant or insist that any further applications come from a legal representative. However, the process of checking whether the latest submission from a persistent applicant does raise any different point still engages the use of the CCRC’s resources.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/is-the-ccrc-fit-for-purpose/
!00% - If at first you don't succeed - brow beat! @)(++(*
-
"As such, the quashing of the convictions of appellants believed to be factually guilty is also a normal feature of the criminal appeals system if they were obtained in breach of due process (see, for instance, R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; also, R v Clarke and R v McDaid; and, R v Weir).
http://michaeljnaughton.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Huff-and-Naughton-Chapter-March-2017.pdf
-
"On The State of Criminal Justice: 1993 Presidential Address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
Myths and counterproductive policies abound. Nevertheless, most ACJS members seem content to debate among themselves at meetings and publish research findings in journals that are rarely read by anyone outside academic institutions. As a result, the criminal justice policy agenda has been shaped by politicians, criminal justice officials, and other interest groups that act on the basis of narrow personal or bureaucratic interests and reflect an ahistorical, atheoretical, provincial, and crisis-management approach to problems. .https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=148613
Nearly 3 decades later and this could equally apply to the UK Criminal Justice system as it is now.
-
Not sure if anyone saw this earlier in the year?
"Dr Michael Naughton, Reader in Sociology and Law, submitted evidence for a Tailored Review evaluating the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). The review will determine whether there is a continuing need for the organisation, and if so will carry out an investigation into the CCRC’s effectiveness as well as the measures in place to ensure compliance with good corporate governance.
The CCRC, established in 1995, investigates possible miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and refers cases that have been assessed as having a strong potential to be overturned to a relevant Court of Appeal.
Dr Naughton’s appraisal includes an analysis of the CCRC’s statutory functions, whether the delivery of these functions could be improved, its service to applicants and whether appropriate allocation of resources to cases is in place. To read Dr Naughton’s submission online please click here.
Submissions for the call for evidence closed on 14 January. The review is expected to take four months, after which the final report will be published on the gov.uk website.
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/news/2018/michael-naughton-ccrc-submission.html
Worth reading IMO
http://michaeljnaughton.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/MOJ-tailored-review-of-the-CCRC-10-January-2018-my-ID-removed.pdf
Here's the CCRC's annual report 2017/18 https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ccrc-prod-storage-1jdn5d1f6iq1l/uploads/2018/07/CCRC-Annual-Report-2017-18_Web-Accessible.pdf
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/news/2018/article-by-dr-michael-naughton-published-in-the-british-journal-of-criminology.html
-
"Decisions about whether or not cases can be referred are always taken by one or more of our Commissioners who are chosen for their professional experience and ability to make important decisions in complicated matters. Cases are generally passed to Commissioners on a ‘cab rank’ basis. All our Commissioners decide all types of cases. Commissioners are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Each is appointed for a period of up to five years and can, if re-appointed, serve for a maximum of ten years. Our Commissioners are:
List of CCRC's commissioners
https://ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/commissioners/
-
"A killer who protested his innocence for more than a decade, convincing MPs, appearing in a BBC documentary and costing the taxpayer up to half a million in legal bills, has confessed to the murder 12 years later
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10230506/Killer-admits-murder-12-years-on-costing-taxpayers-500000.html
How much of the alleged half a million pound did the CCRC and Court of Appeal take up in order to refer the Simon Hall case? Is anyone interested? Does anyone care?
How much has it cost the CCRC in relation to the Gordon Park case to date I wonder?
"Ian Brooks, accountant, is our Director of Finance & Corporate Services. Ian has overall responsibility for financial management and control. Ian also oversees the provision of corporate services including strategic oversight of human resources, IT, information management and the management of risk within the Commission.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/senior-management-team/
And what lessons, if any, did the CCRC learn following the Simon Hall case?
"The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the murder conviction of Simon Hall to the Court of Appeal in October 2009.
The CCRC said: The Commission identified specific aspects of forensic evidence that, in our view, raised the real possibility that the court might quash Mr Hall’s conviction and we referred the case to the Court of Appeal accordingly. In this case, as in any other case involving a referral made by the Commission, it is the role of the appeal court to decide whether or not the conviction is unsafe. In this case the Court decided it is not.
As in all Commission referral cases, we will study the Court’s judgment in detail to see what lessons it may hold for us.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-statement-on-the-court-of-appeal-decision-to-uphold-the-conviction-of-simon-hall/
-
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/28/stephen-simmons-arrested-mailbag-theft-1976-hopes-clear-his-name
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/13/oval-four-could-have-decades-long-convictions-overturned
-
"A killer who protested his innocence for more than a decade, convincing MPs, appearing in a BBC documentary and costing the taxpayer up to half a million in legal bills, has confessed to the murder 12 years later
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10230506/Killer-admits-murder-12-years-on-costing-taxpayers-500000.html
How much of the alleged half a million pound did the CCRC and Court of Appeal take up in order to refer the Simon Hall case? Is anyone interested? Does anyone care?
How much has it cost the CCRC in relation to the Gordon Park case to date I wonder?
"Ian Brooks, accountant, is our Director of Finance & Corporate Services. Ian has overall responsibility for financial management and control. Ian also oversees the provision of corporate services including strategic oversight of human resources, IT, information management and the management of risk within the Commission.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/senior-management-team/
And what lessons, if any, did the CCRC learn following the Simon Hall case?
"The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the murder conviction of Simon Hall to the Court of Appeal in October 2009.
The CCRC said: The Commission identified specific aspects of forensic evidence that, in our view, raised the real possibility that the court might quash Mr Hall’s conviction and we referred the case to the Court of Appeal accordingly. In this case, as in any other case involving a referral made by the Commission, it is the role of the appeal court to decide whether or not the conviction is unsafe. In this case the Court decided it is not.
As in all Commission referral cases, we will study the Court’s judgment in detail to see what lessons it may hold for us.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-statement-on-the-court-of-appeal-decision-to-uphold-the-conviction-of-simon-hall/
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.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmjust/850/85003.htm
-
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.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmjust/850/85003.htm
”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”
Would be interested to learn what, if anything, the Criminal Cases Review Commission fed back into the criminal justice system following the discovery in 2013 of Simon Halls guilt?
-
”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”
Would be interested to learn what, if anything, the Criminal Cases Review Commission fed back into the criminal justice system following the discovery in 2013 of Simon Halls guilt?
In light of the recent murders at Fishmongers Hall in London carried out by convicted terrorist Usman Khan there appears to be yet another elephant in the room?
Ismail Abdurahmans appeal is due to be heard on 5th Dec 2019 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Ismail Abdurahman was convicted in February 2008 of assisting an offender and failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism.
The charges related to the attack on the London underground on 21 July 2005 in which three devices were detonated but each failed to explode.
Four men, Hussein Osman, Muktar Ibrahim, Yassin Omar and Ramzi Mohamed were all convicted of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommended minimum term to be served of 40 years.
At a separate trial at Kingston Crown Court, Mr Abdurahman was prosecuted as one of a group of people said to have given active assistance to the bombers.
Mr Abdurahman pleaded not guilty but was convicted and sentenced to a total of ten years’ imprisonment. He appealed and his sentence was reduced to eight years, but his appeal against conviction was dismissed.
Mr Abdurahman applied unsuccessfully to the CCRC in 2009. He applied again in February 2017 having received in September 2016 a judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) in which the Court found that his Article 6 rights (right to a fair trial) were breached by the way in which he was dealt with by the police when interviewed as a witness.
Having conducted a detailed review of the case, the Commission has decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal because it considers there is a real possibility that the Court will now quash the conviction. The referral is based on new evidence in the form of the judgment of Grand Chamber of the ECtHR which concludes that Mr Abdurahman’s trial was “irretrievably prejudiced”.
The ECtHR judgment in the Case of Ibrahim and Others v United Kingdom (Applications nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09) is available at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int
Mr Abdurahman has been represented in his application to the CCRC by Carters Solicitors, 47 Cumberland Street, Pimlico, London. SW1V 4LY.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-terrorism-related-conviction-of-ismail-abdurahman-to-the-court-of-appeal/
-
”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”
Would be interested to learn what, if anything, the Criminal Cases Review Commission fed back into the criminal justice system following the discovery in 2013 of Simon Halls guilt?
The Criminal Cases Review Commission claim on its website,
“We investigate and identify potential miscarriages of justice and, in doing so, promote public confidence in the criminal justice system” https://ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/who-we-are/
The Commission’s website does not make clear what a ‘miscarriage of justice’ is and what it is not. ie; an ‘unsafe’ conviction does not equate to factual innocence.
What ‘confidence in the criminal justice system’ did the Commission ‘promote’ by WRONGLY referring Simon Halls murder conviction to the CoA in 2009?
The Commissions website is misleading and needs updating with immediate effect.
By not clarifying this issue they are further compounding the suffering and distress of the living victims in some of the cases they review; the victims family and friends and not least of all; especially in murder cases, the victims memory.
-
The Criminal Cases Review Commission claim on its website,
“We investigate and identify potential miscarriages of justice and, in doing so, promote public confidence in the criminal justice system” https://ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/who-we-are/
The Commission’s website does not make clear what a ‘miscarriage of justice’ is and what it is not. ie; an ‘unsafe’ conviction does not equate to factual innocence.
What ‘confidence in the criminal justice system’ did the Commission ‘promote’ by WRONGLY referring Simon Halls murder conviction to the CoA in 2009?
The Commissions website is misleading and needs updating with immediate effect.
By not clarifying this issue they are further compounding the suffering and distress of the living victims in some of the cases they review; the victims family and friends and not least of all; especially in murder cases, the victims memory.
Justice gap can be filled by the new Centre for Criminal Appeals by Jon Robins Sept 2011
“I was witness to an unusual reunion this week, between the former solicitor-general Vera Baird QC, defence lawyer Glyn Maddocks and a 73-year-old Welsh pensioner called Tony Stock. The last time the three of them were together was 15 years ago at the Royal Courts of Justice.
At that point Stock had already spent over quarter of a century fighting to prove his innocence. In July 1970 he was sentenced to 10 years for his part in a brutal robbery in a Leeds shopping centre. Back at the royal courts in 1994, Baird was then junior to Michael Mansfield QC and Stock was Glyn Maddocks's first client claiming to be the victim of a miscarrige of justice.
Stock and his defence team assumed his name would be cleared after a supergrass confessed to his role, identifying four accomplices, in an attack that involved setting upon staff with iron bars and stealing more than £4,000. That confession was made in 1978.
The wheels of justice, as they say, turn slowly. Stock always fought the conviction. He was one of the first rooftop protesters, and spent almost 100 days on hunger strike. It is astonishing that after 41 years, he is still trying to clear his name – and spending his pension on hiring private investigators to track down the original witnesses.
Three years after Baird, Maddocks and Stock last met, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) was set up in 1997 as a response to a scandalous list of miscarriages: the Birmingham Six, the Bridgewater Four and the Cardiff Three. The Stock case has a small but significant place in legal history: it is the first and only case to have been referred back to the appeal courts twice by the CCRC. And yet, after a total of four appeals, the conviction remains in place. The 1996 appeal failed despite the dramatic appearance of the supergrass, Sam Benefield, a former member of a vicious east London group, the Thursday gang. He was sneaked through the back door of the Royal Courts of Justice, with an armed guard, dressed as an Arab sheik.
The primary reason for the meeting this week was for Maddocks, Baird and Emily Bolton of the anti-death penalty charity Reprieve to discuss a new organisation called the Centre for Criminal Appeals which will support the investigation of miscarriages.
"The case of Tony Stock is exceptional for many reasons but it's also a textbook example why we need the CCA," Maddocks tells me. "The evidence supporting his conviction has been shot to pieces. There is literally nothing left of the prosecution case. Yet he's still fighting. The system has failed. We need a new approach."
Since the Stock case, Maddocks has acted in numerous cases of wrongful conviction including that of Paul Blackburn, whose conviction for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a nine-year-old boy was quashed after 25 years in 2005 and Johnny Kamara, whose conviction for murder was quashed in 2000 after 17 years.
The idea behind the Centre for Criminal Appeals is to fill what Madocks calls "a very real justice gap". The lawyer points to the network of help for those claiming to be victims of judicial error: the university-based Innocence Projects, a diminishing number of criminal defence lawyers who are willing to spend time on poorly remunerated appeals work and other initiatives such as the Inside Justice led by the journalist Louise Shorter at Inside Times. However, Maddocks argues, there is nothing "which brings together the level of expertise necessary".
What about the CCRC? "When the Commission came on stream, we all thought that it was Valhalla," replies Baird. She points out that the human rights group JUSTICE, which pioneered miscarriage investigations, then retreated from case work, not wanting to tread on the commission's toes. "It has taken quite a while to appreciate that the problems aren't over."
The three lawyers behind the CCA argue that the commission's resources are becoming increasingly stretched, with more than 1,000 cases a year to progress (the commission has been outspoken about its own funding issues) and now "faces an almost impossible task in undertaking the depth and level of investigation that is required in all but a very few of them". The watchdog has come under some pretty heavy fire, as critics argue the Birmingham-based body is no longer fit for purpose.
Baird talks of the "studied and obligatory neutrality" of the CCRC. "What is needed," he says, "is somebody that's going to investigate what might be unlikely leads. You need somebody on the side of the victims of the miscarriage of justice."
"The CCRC are decision-makers. They're not an advocacy organisation," argues Emily Bolton. As she points out, the CCA will be able to cherry pick cases, whereas the commission is statutorily obliged to consider all applications. Bolton helped set up the Innocence Project New Orleans, providing legal representation to the wrongfully convicted. "We started in 2001 and our work has led to the reversal of 19 convictions," she says.
They also point to problems of legal aid, which have long meant that defence lawyers are increasingly unwilling to take on non-remunerative appeal cases. Lawyers get paid £49.70 per hour for this work – a rate that has not changed since 2001 – and then they aren't paid until a case is finished, which could be years. There aren't many lawyers who are "still sufficiently committed or financially reckless", as Maddocks puts it, to take on "the often thankless task of trying to overturn false convictions".
The idea for the CCA is for a two-year pilot staffed by one or two case workers to demonstrate to public and private funders that a specialised, not-for-profit legal centre can deliver results. The pilot will rely on legal aid for its casework where available but seeks grant funding for its criminal justice policy role. It hopes to establish a sustainable funding model after two years
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/sep/26/criminal-justice-ukcrime
Dame Vera Baird DBE QC is a British politician, barrister, and academic. She is currently serving as The Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales.
-
In light of the recent murders at Fishmongers Hall in London carried out by convicted terrorist Usman Khan there appears to be yet another elephant in the room?
Ismail Abdurahmans appeal is due to be heard on 5th Dec 2019 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Ismail Abdurahman was convicted in February 2008 of assisting an offender and failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism.
The charges related to the attack on the London underground on 21 July 2005 in which three devices were detonated but each failed to explode.
Four men, Hussein Osman, Muktar Ibrahim, Yassin Omar and Ramzi Mohamed were all convicted of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommended minimum term to be served of 40 years.
At a separate trial at Kingston Crown Court, Mr Abdurahman was prosecuted as one of a group of people said to have given active assistance to the bombers.
Mr Abdurahman pleaded not guilty but was convicted and sentenced to a total of ten years’ imprisonment. He appealed and his sentence was reduced to eight years, but his appeal against conviction was dismissed.
Mr Abdurahman applied unsuccessfully to the CCRC in 2009. He applied again in February 2017 having received in September 2016 a judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) in which the Court found that his Article 6 rights (right to a fair trial) were breached by the way in which he was dealt with by the police when interviewed as a witness.
Having conducted a detailed review of the case, the Commission has decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal because it considers there is a real possibility that the Court will now quash the conviction. The referral is based on new evidence in the form of the judgment of Grand Chamber of the ECtHR which concludes that Mr Abdurahman’s trial was “irretrievably prejudiced”.
The ECtHR judgment in the Case of Ibrahim and Others v United Kingdom (Applications nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09) is available at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int
Mr Abdurahman has been represented in his application to the CCRC by Carters Solicitors, 47 Cumberland Street, Pimlico, London. SW1V 4LY.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-terrorism-related-conviction-of-ismail-abdurahman-to-the-court-of-appeal/
17th Dec 2019
‘Three Court of Appeal judges in London announced today that Ismail Abdurahman's conviction 'is not unsafe', even though judges in Europe found his trial was unfair’
In the light of that finding, his case was referred earlier this year to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the independent body which investigates possible miscarriages of justice.
After reviewing the safety of the conviction at a hearing earlier this month, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mr Justice Garnham and Mr Justice Chamberlain, dismissed his appeal.
The challenge centred on the admissibility of the first statement Abdurahman made to police at a time he was being questioned as a potential witness, not as a suspect.
When he began incriminating himself, officers sought advice and were told to continue without administering a caution
The Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg court ruled, by a majority, that admission in evidence of that statement gave rise to a violation of his right to a fair trial under article six of the European Convention on Human Rights - but dismissed his claim for 'substantial' damages.
It had concluded there were no 'compelling reasons' for restricting access to legal advice in Abdurahman's case.
But the three appeal judges ruled that the conviction remained safe, despite the findings of the Strasbourg court.
Dame Victoria said they had concluded 'there were indeed compelling reasons for restricting access to legal advice'.
They agreed with the observation made by the Court of Appeal in 2008 that Abdurahman was 'providing information about Osman which could have been of critical importance in securing his arrest, which was the priority at that time'.
Dame Victoria said she and her fellow judges had placed 'considerable weight' on the other evidence in the case, which was 'overwhelming'.
She pointed out that the Grand Chamber itself had recognised its conclusion on fairness 'did not entail that Mr Abdurahman was wrongly convicted'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7802311/Appeal-court-upholds-conviction-man-helped-member-21-7-London-bomb-plot-gang.html
-
17th Dec 2019
‘Three Court of Appeal judges in London announced today that Ismail Abdurahman's conviction 'is not unsafe', even though judges in Europe found his trial was unfair’
In the light of that finding, his case was referred earlier this year to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the independent body which investigates possible miscarriages of justice.
After reviewing the safety of the conviction at a hearing earlier this month, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mr Justice Garnham and Mr Justice Chamberlain, dismissed his appeal.
The challenge centred on the admissibility of the first statement Abdurahman made to police at a time he was being questioned as a potential witness, not as a suspect.
When he began incriminating himself, officers sought advice and were told to continue without administering a caution
The Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg court ruled, by a majority, that admission in evidence of that statement gave rise to a violation of his right to a fair trial under article six of the European Convention on Human Rights - but dismissed his claim for 'substantial' damages.
It had concluded there were no 'compelling reasons' for restricting access to legal advice in Abdurahman's case.
But the three appeal judges ruled that the conviction remained safe, despite the findings of the Strasbourg court.
Dame Victoria said they had concluded 'there were indeed compelling reasons for restricting access to legal advice'.
They agreed with the observation made by the Court of Appeal in 2008 that Abdurahman was 'providing information about Osman which could have been of critical importance in securing his arrest, which was the priority at that time'.
Dame Victoria said she and her fellow judges had placed 'considerable weight' on the other evidence in the case, which was 'overwhelming'.
She pointed out that the Grand Chamber itself had recognised its conclusion on fairness 'did not entail that Mr Abdurahman was wrongly convicted'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7802311/Appeal-court-upholds-conviction-man-helped-member-21-7-London-bomb-plot-gang.html
What are the CCRC playing at?
R v Ismail Abdurahman
SUMMARY
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against conviction
“The Court of Appeal considered it is difficult to conceive of more compelling reasons than the need to obtain information about the whereabouts of an individual who had already detonated a bomb capable of killing and maiming large numbers of people and who it was believed, for good reason, may be planning imminently to detonate more (see paragraph 114).
Read more here https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Abdurahman-Press-Summary-1.pdf
-
”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”
Would be interested to learn what, if anything, the Criminal Cases Review Commission fed back into the criminal justice system following the discovery in 2013 of Simon Halls guilt?
CCRC
@ccrcupdate
We are looking forward to seeing Dr Michael Naughton from Empowering the Innocent
@ccrcupdate this afternoon. We are willing as always to engage with and listen to our stakeholders and critics.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ccrcupdate/status/1216642190589362176
-
CCRC
@ccrcupdate
We are looking forward to seeing Dr Michael Naughton from Empowering the Innocent
@ccrcupdate this afternoon. We are willing as always to engage with and listen to our stakeholders and critics.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ccrcupdate/status/1216642190589362176
Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
Meeting with the Chair of @ccrcupdate this afternoon about @EmpowerInnocent
I hope it is constructive & productive & that Helen Pitcher OBE is open to a critique of the structures of the CCRC (real poss test) that can & do fail innocent victims of wrongful convictions & families.
8:07 AM · Jan 13, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1216632726675169281