UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Off Topic and General Discussions => Off topic, general discussions and the Wide Awake Club. => Topic started by: Nicholas on March 04, 2012, 01:32:52 PM
-
The Commission is an independent public body that was set up in March 1997 by the 1995 Criminal Appeal Act. Our purpose is to review possible miscarriages of justice in the criminal courts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and refer appropriate cases to the appeal courts.
The Commission is based in Birmingham and has about 100 staff, including a core of about 50 caseworkers, supported by administrative staff.
There are nine Commissioners, appointed in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice. They work with the Senior Management Team to ensure the Commission runs efficiently.
We are completely independent and impartial and do not represent the prosecution or the defence.
Our Vision
To enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system, to give hope and bring justice to those wrongly convicted, and based on our experience to contribute to reform and improvements in the law
Our Values
Independence
Integrity
Impartiality
Professionalism
Accountability
Transparency
Our aims
To investigate cases as quickly as possible and with thoroughness and care
To work constructively with our stakeholders and to the highest standards of quality
To treat applicants, and anyone affected by our work, with courtesy, respect and consideration
To promote public understanding of the Commission’s role
http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/about.htm
-
Symposium on the Reform of the Criminal Cases Review Commission
Friday 30th March 2012
Time: 9:30 am - 5:00 pm
Venue: Norton Rose LLP
3 More London Riverside
London SE1 2AQ
Nearest Tube London Bridge
Booking is now open for INUK's Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust-funded conference on reforming the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
It will be on Friday the 30th March 2012, to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the CCRC, and will hosted by Norton Rose LLP, near London Bridge.
Lunch and refreshments will be provided and 5 CPD points are available for those that want them.
Likely to be one of the most significant events on the law of criminal appeals and the role of the CCRC to date, speakers so far confirmed include:
Chris Mullin, the ex-MP connected with the Birmingham Six case and the setting up of the CCRC, will launch the proceedings.
Dr Eamonn O' Neill is the Chair of the event and will also do a presentation from the perspective of an investigative journalist who has overturned wrongful convictions (Robert Brown and Stuart Gair).
Susan May and Eddie Gilfoyle, alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions will talk of their on-going struggles with the CCRC to have their cases investigated and referred back to the Court of Appeal.
Prof. Michael Zander, who was a Member of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice that recommended the establishment of the CCRC, will outline his thoughts on the main problem with dealing with alleged wrongful convictions and how things can be changed.
Laurie Elks and David Jessel, both ex-Commissioners at the CCRC, will share their separate thoughts on how the current arrangements could be reformed to better assist applicants who may be innocent.
Mark George QC and Mark Newby, Solicitor Advocate, who both have a great track record with the CCRC will also give their analysis and recommendations for reform.
Bruce Kent, Chair, Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence, will speak about the Ray Gilbert case, who has maintained innocence for 30 years and was recently refused a referral by the CCRC despite many flaws in his conviction.
Russ Spring, United Against Injustice, West Midlands Against Injustice, will speak about the campaign for the abolition of the CCRC.
Professor Richard Nobles, Queen Mary University, London, will present an analysis of his and his colleagues', Professor David Schiff's, critique of the CCRC and the reforms that they believe could enable the CCRC to more effectively deal with applications by alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions.
Paddy Joe Hill of the Birmingham Six will close the event with his views on the CCRC from the perspective that it was set up in large part in response to the case of the Birmingham Six yet a growing number of plausible claims of innocence are failing to be referred back to the appeal courts by the CCRC - it is even doubtful that the CCRC would refer a case like the Birmingham Six if it were to come before it today.
The symposium will be invaluable to all those staff and students of member innocence projects in terms of providing a deeper understanding of the challenges that we face in trying to overturn alleged wrongful convictions under the present arrangements.
It will also provide rich information to those with an interest in the academic and policy aspects within the field of of wrongful conviction studies.
Cost: Members of the public £100 / £150.00 Lawyers (with 5 CPD points awarded)
Further information and booking details at:
http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/events
Dr Michael Naughton
Founder & Director, Innocence Network UK (INUK)
University of Bristol
Wills Memorial Building
Queens Rd
Bristol
BS8 1RJ
Tel: +44 (0)117 954 5323
Fax: +44 (0)117 9545124
Email: M.Naughton@bristol.ac.uk
http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk
-
Very interesting Steph. Are you going to be going?
-
Very interesting Steph. Are you going to be going?
Hey Tim... no afraid not... and definately not @ £100!
Yeah I thought that was a bit steep. It should be free for anyone with a case at the CCRC! I will behaving a strong word with them! @)(++(*
-
?>)()<
The C.C.R.C are actually corrupt, and conduct themselves as though they are the Court Of Appeal. There is only one route to deal with them, and that is to employ the "inherent right to appeal" which has never been revoked and every British Citizen is by birth entitled to use. Once the C.O.A reject, you can safely make an application to the ECHR. This is what they fear, it's the only thing that they fear.
-
As I am currently going through a personal case at the moment, I have high backing from some senior figures around the legal fraternity, I also believe that the ECHR do hold power and can help to overturn wrongful decisions
>@@(*&) I have been thinking clearly and slowly getting through this case with drive, energy and lots and lots of determination
-
Symposium on the Reform of the Criminal Cases Review Commission
Friday 30th March 2012
Time: 9:30 am - 5:00 pm
Venue: Norton Rose LLP
3 More London Riverside
London SE1 2AQ
Nearest Tube London Bridge
Booking is now open for INUK's Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust-funded conference on reforming the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
It will be on Friday the 30th March 2012, to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the CCRC, and will hosted by Norton Rose LLP, near London Bridge.
Lunch and refreshments will be provided and 5 CPD points are available for those that want them.
Likely to be one of the most significant events on the law of criminal appeals and the role of the CCRC to date, speakers so far confirmed include:
Chris Mullin, the ex-MP connected with the Birmingham Six case and the setting up of the CCRC, will launch the proceedings.
Dr Eamonn O' Neill is the Chair of the event and will also do a presentation from the perspective of an investigative journalist who has overturned wrongful convictions (Robert Brown and Stuart Gair).
Susan May and Eddie Gilfoyle, alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions will talk of their on-going struggles with the CCRC to have their cases investigated and referred back to the Court of Appeal.
Prof. Michael Zander, who was a Member of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice that recommended the establishment of the CCRC, will outline his thoughts on the main problem with dealing with alleged wrongful convictions and how things can be changed.
Laurie Elks and David Jessel, both ex-Commissioners at the CCRC, will share their separate thoughts on how the current arrangements could be reformed to better assist applicants who may be innocent.
Mark George QC and Mark Newby, Solicitor Advocate, who both have a great track record with the CCRC will also give their analysis and recommendations for reform.
Bruce Kent, Chair, Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence, will speak about the Ray Gilbert case, who has maintained innocence for 30 years and was recently refused a referral by the CCRC despite many flaws in his conviction.
Russ Spring, United Against Injustice, West Midlands Against Injustice, will speak about the campaign for the abolition of the CCRC.
Professor Richard Nobles, Queen Mary University, London, will present an analysis of his and his colleagues', Professor David Schiff's, critique of the CCRC and the reforms that they believe could enable the CCRC to more effectively deal with applications by alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions.
Paddy Joe Hill of the Birmingham Six will close the event with his views on the CCRC from the perspective that it was set up in large part in response to the case of the Birmingham Six yet a growing number of plausible claims of innocence are failing to be referred back to the appeal courts by the CCRC - it is even doubtful that the CCRC would refer a case like the Birmingham Six if it were to come before it today.
The symposium will be invaluable to all those staff and students of member innocence projects in terms of providing a deeper understanding of the challenges that we face in trying to overturn alleged wrongful convictions under the present arrangements.
It will also provide rich information to those with an interest in the academic and policy aspects within the field of of wrongful conviction studies.
Cost: Members of the public £100 / £150.00 Lawyers (with 5 CPD points awarded)
Further information and booking details at:
http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/events
Dr Michael Naughton
Founder & Director, Innocence Network UK (INUK)
University of Bristol
Wills Memorial Building
Queens Rd
Bristol
BS8 1RJ
Tel: +44 (0)117 954 5323
Fax: +44 (0)117 9545124
Email: M.Naughton@bristol.ac.uk
http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk
Will be interesting to hear how Michael Naughton got on with Helen Pitcher from the CCRC yesterday.
-
Will be interesting to hear how Michael Naughton got on with Helen Pitcher from the CCRC yesterday.
Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
Re meeting with @ccrcupdate yesterday. We will see, but it seemed constructive and they seemed to take onboard some of my critiques and suggestions on how they might improve their communications and assistance to applicants who claim innocence. I need to write an article.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1217147041027121154
-
Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
Re meeting with @ccrcupdate yesterday. We will see, but it seemed constructive and they seemed to take onboard some of my critiques and suggestions on how they might improve their communications and assistance to applicants who claim innocence. I need to write an article.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1217147041027121154
Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
It is shameful that Cheshire police refuse to apologise to Paul Blackburn for his 25 years in prison, but they have no shame. They simply don’t care: “Police reject judge's call to apologise over wrongful conviction.”
Police reject judge's call to apologise over wrongful conviction
Evidence of Cheshire force that led to 1978 imprisonment of Paul Blackburn ‘absurd’
theguardian.com
5:54 AM · Jan 14, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1216961832625287168
The Paul Blackburn case reminds me in parts to that of Stephen Downing. The police appear to be suggesting there aren’t other suspects?!
However Michael Naughton needs to look at his own behaviour before casting aspersions. The fact he chooses to not publicly discuss ‘innocent fraud’ suggests to me his personal agenda/s outweigh the truth!?
-
Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
It is shameful that Cheshire police refuse to apologise to Paul Blackburn for his 25 years in prison, but they have no shame. They simply don’t care: “Police reject judge's call to apologise over wrongful conviction.”
Police reject judge's call to apologise over wrongful conviction
Evidence of Cheshire force that led to 1978 imprisonment of Paul Blackburn ‘absurd’
theguardian.com
5:54 AM · Jan 14, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1216961832625287168
The Paul Blackburn case reminds me in parts to that of Stephen Downing. The police appear to be suggesting there aren’t other suspects?!
However Michael Naughton needs to look at his own behaviour before casting aspersions. The fact he chooses to not publicly discuss ‘innocent fraud’ suggests to me his personal agenda/s outweigh the truth!?
Both the Paul Blackburn and Stephen Downing cases feature in Dr Michael Naughton’s (with Gabe Tan) book ‘Claims of Innocence’ http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Claims-of-Innocence.pdf
as does the case of Robert Brown https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/spent-25-years-jail-after-16355857
Investigative journalist Eamon O'Neill campaigned for Robert Brown and was a contributor to Michael Naughton’s book
-
Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
It is shameful that Cheshire police refuse to apologise to Paul Blackburn for his 25 years in prison, but they have no shame. They simply don’t care: “Police reject judge's call to apologise over wrongful conviction.”
Police reject judge's call to apologise over wrongful conviction
Evidence of Cheshire force that led to 1978 imprisonment of Paul Blackburn ‘absurd’
theguardian.com
5:54 AM · Jan 14, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1216961832625287168
The Paul Blackburn case reminds me in parts to that of Stephen Downing. The police appear to be suggesting there aren’t other suspects?!
However Michael Naughton needs to look at his own behaviour before casting aspersions. The fact he chooses to not publicly discuss ‘innocent fraud’ suggests to me his personal agenda/s outweigh the truth!?
Justice must be seen to be done by Michael Naughton Nov 2008
‘The appointment of Richard Foster as the new chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has greatly disturbed those involved in overturning wrongful convictions.
It is an age-old adage that justice not only has to be done; it has to be seen to be done for the public to have faith in its functioning. In the same way, it is felt that the body that was set up to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice needs to be seen to be independent from the formal agencies of the criminal justice system that is alleged to have caused them, especially since there has been a public crisis of confidence that potentially meritorious cases were not being referred back to the court of appeal under the old system.
Born out of notorious cases such as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, the CCRC has always prided itself on its independence and it has striven to assure the public that it is committed to the plight of the wrongly convicted.
It has sought faith in its operations and Foster's immediate predecessors have indeed been independent from the system: Sir Frederick Crawford was a distinguished scientist with no legal background and Professor Graham Zellick was an academic lawyer and university administrator. This independence has been enhanced by the appointment of commissioners such as Dr James McKeith, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, and David Jessel, an investigative journalist, who both helped to quash numerous miscarriages of justice before their appointments with the CCRC.
It is not, then, that Foster is not suitably qualified for such a post. His previous role as the chief executive of the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as his wealth of other senior positions, shows that he has the necessary managerial experiences to deliver his remit at the helm of an organisation such as the CCRC.
But the appointment of a senior figure from the prosecution community appears to be counter-intuitive for a body that the public believes was established to overturn the wrongful convictions of innocent people. It introduces a possible conflict of interest and sits uneasily with those trying to challenge the failings of the criminal justice process and overturn wrongful convictions. It could also contribute to a lack of faith in the independence of an organisation that is already under fire for the shortage of referrals to the court of appeal.
But does it really matter who is the head of the CCRC? The Innocence Network UK, the umbrella organisation for more than 20 projects in UK universities, was established because the CCRC could not guarantee to refer the cases of innocent victims of wrongful conviction and imprisonment back to the appeal courts whoever is its head.
Students working with criminal lawyers provide pro bono assistance to prisoners maintaining their innocence, with a view to making an application to the CCRC (or the Scottish CCRC) in the hope that their cases are referred back to the court of appeal.
At the same time, the Prison Service and the Parole Board are at a loss to know what to do with the sheer number of prisoners claiming miscarriages of justice. They refuse to undertake offending behaviour courses, a necessary prerequisite for progression and release, and have created a bottleneck in the system of prisoners who may never be released.
Yet, as the website of the CCRC states, it does "not consider innocence or guilt, but whether there is new evidence or argument that may cast doubt on the safety of an original decision". Under these strictly legal terms, it refers only those cases believed to have "a real possibility" of being overturned. It does not act in accordance with what the public thinks it was set up to do and may not be able to refer the cases of applicants that it finds to be innocent if the evidence of their innocence was available at the time of their original trial.
This means that concerns about the head of the CCRC are, largely, irrelevant, as it will continue to be bounded by the straitjacket of its statutory remit whoever is at the top.
Instead, it would be more meaningful for the innocent that are languishing in prison if we turn our attention to trying to reform the court of appeal. We need an Innocence Act so that it can receive compelling evidence of innocence, even if it was available at trial but not used and/or the jury have already heard it decided against it. Only then can the CCRC operate as we want it to.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/20/justice-law
-
Justice must be seen to be done by Michael Naughton Nov 2008
‘The appointment of Richard Foster as the new chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has greatly disturbed those involved in overturning wrongful convictions.
It is an age-old adage that justice not only has to be done; it has to be seen to be done for the public to have faith in its functioning. In the same way, it is felt that the body that was set up to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice needs to be seen to be independent from the formal agencies of the criminal justice system that is alleged to have caused them, especially since there has been a public crisis of confidence that potentially meritorious cases were not being referred back to the court of appeal under the old system.
Born out of notorious cases such as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, the CCRC has always prided itself on its independence and it has striven to assure the public that it is committed to the plight of the wrongly convicted.
It has sought faith in its operations and Foster's immediate predecessors have indeed been independent from the system: Sir Frederick Crawford was a distinguished scientist with no legal background and Professor Graham Zellick was an academic lawyer and university administrator. This independence has been enhanced by the appointment of commissioners such as Dr James McKeith, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, and David Jessel, an investigative journalist, who both helped to quash numerous miscarriages of justice before their appointments with the CCRC.
It is not, then, that Foster is not suitably qualified for such a post. His previous role as the chief executive of the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as his wealth of other senior positions, shows that he has the necessary managerial experiences to deliver his remit at the helm of an organisation such as the CCRC.
But the appointment of a senior figure from the prosecution community appears to be counter-intuitive for a body that the public believes was established to overturn the wrongful convictions of innocent people. It introduces a possible conflict of interest and sits uneasily with those trying to challenge the failings of the criminal justice process and overturn wrongful convictions. It could also contribute to a lack of faith in the independence of an organisation that is already under fire for the shortage of referrals to the court of appeal.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/20/justice-law
Dr James McKeith
“It was through his clinical casework in the late 1970s, many years before the Criminal Cases Review Commission was established, that MacKeith became concerned about cases of wrongful conviction arising from false confessions under police interrogation.
He teamed up with a colleague at the Institute of Psychiatry, Dr (now Professor) Gisli Gudjonsson, a psychologist, and their joint research studies and thorough casework were crucial in demonstrating, in the face of substantial initial scepticism, the existence of false confessions: how they arise, and the potential unreliability of criminal convictions based on uncorroborated confessions alone.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1561145/James-MacKeith.html
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF FALSE CONFESSIONS AND WAYS TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM by Gisli Gudjonsson
“Most ordinary people find it difficult to believe that anybody living in a civilised society, who is not mentally ill or mentally handicapped, would confess to a serious crime of which they are innocent. I have assessed over 250 cases when confessions have subsequently been retracted. My impression is that the majority of such cases do not involve genuine false confession. Some guilty people retract their confessions because they cannot face up to that they have done. Some partly persuade themselves that they were somehow justified in committing the offence - a 'self-deception' which is particularly common among offenders who experience a great deal of shame for what they have done, such as sex offenders. Confessions can also be retracted because the accused is unable to admit the crime to his or her loved ones.
How many factually guilty defendants have had their convictions reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, referred to the Court of Appeal and subsequently had their conviction overturned on a technicality as opposed to factual innocence?
And who follows up on and investigates these cases once the conviction/s are overturned?
-
Criminal Cases Review Commission And The Case Of Wang Yam
By Kirsty Brimelow QC
“The Criminal Cases Review Commission has become one of the critical safeguards for our human, and thus fallible, criminal justice system, stepping in where things might have gone wrong.”
Sir Brian Leveson CCRC Annual Lecture April 2018
In this article I consider my experience of working with the CCRC on Wang Yam, an appeal against a murder conviction.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) celebrated its 20 -year anniversary in 2017. It is set against a background of miscarriages of justice in the 1980s and emerged from the Runciman Commission which was appointed in the barely settled dust of the quashed convictions of the Birmingham Six. The Home Secretary's Criminal Cases Unit (CCU) was dismantled and the CCRC, an independent body free of executive attachments, was constructed. It was envisaged that the CCRC would not be smoothed or cowed into constitutional deference to the Court of Appeal (CACD) and would investigate and refer more cases.
A fundamental criticism of the CCU was that it referred too few cases. If CCRC’s success is measured against the number of cases it has referred to the Court of Appeal, it is failing. 96% of cases are not referred. However, the CCRC’s success rate, once referrals are made, keeps a steady 70%.
Powers
An application may be made to the CCRC for it to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, where there is a “real possibility that the conviction … would not be upheld” if this application was referred to the Court of Appeal (section 13(1)(a) Criminal Appeal Act 1995) and the real possibility arises “because of an argument … not raised in the proceedings which led to [the conviction] or on any appeal” (section 13(1)(b) Criminal Appeal Act 1995) and the applicant has already appealed unsuccessfully (section 13(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1995.[1]
When applying the “real possibility” test the CCRC seeks to predict what the CACD’s response would be if the case were to be referred. To quote the CCRC’s former chairman, Professor Zelick:
“What is absolutely essential, it seems to me, is that, whatever statutory test Parliament--that is to say you--imposed, it has to be one that articulates with the test that the Court of Appeal itself has to apply. If you break that link and you establish an asymmetry between the two tests, you would be creating an absurd situation. It would create tension between the Court of Appeal and the Commission, it would raise expectations, it would cause confusion, and it is difficult to see what possible public interest could be served by referring cases on a basis that had no relationship to the test employed by the Court itself.”
Extension to the powers of the CCRC
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Act 2016, which came into force on 12 July 2016 extended the CCRC’s powers. Under s.17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the CCRC had the power to seek and obtain documents from “public bodies”. However, whilst including police and local authorities, it was narrowly interpreting and excluded trial lawyers. Section 18A amended the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 by allowing the obtaining of information from those who are not within public bodies. If there is a refusal, or resistance, the CCRC has the power to apply to the Crown Court for an order that a person gives access to a document or other material in that person’s control. The CCRC must satisfy the court that the document may assist the CCRC in the exercise of its functions. The Order may direct that the person against whom it is made must not destroy, damage or alter the material. In a new legal world of heavily redacted material, it would have been useful for this section to have explicitly set out the court’s power to direct the lifting of redactions, where the underlying material might assist the CCRC in the conduct of its functions.
Wang Yam
Wang Yam was convicted of the murder of Allan Chappelow, an 86-year old man and biographer of George Bernard Shaw, after two trials. In trial one, the jury was unable to reach verdicts in relation to counts of murder, burglary and theft and it was discharged on 1st April 2008. At his retrial, on the 16th of January 2009, Mr. Yam was convicted of murder, burglary and theft by a majority of 9 to 1. The convictions were upheld on appeal. This is the first and only murder case where a substantial part of the evidence was heard in camera, pursuant to Crown Court Order, section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, made on 15th January 2008 and varied on 27th February 2014 (Wang Yam [2010] EWCA Crim 2072; R (in the application of Wang Yam) vs CCC and another [2015] UKSC 76).
At the beginning of June 2006, the HSBC bank reported to the police suspicious activity around Mr. Chappelow’s bank account. The police attended Mr. Chappelow’s home in Downshire Hill in West Hampstead, North London and forced entry. They explored with the use of a torch but did not discover Mr. Chappelow. On 12th June 2006, police attended with a sniffer dog who signalled the body. Alan Chappelow’s was buried under half a ton of Yale University page proofs in a room at the back of the house. He had been battered to death and possibly tortured. He had been dead for weeks with larvae of bluebottle flies providing the evidence as to time of death.
The evidence against Mr. Yam was circumstantial. In outline, from 22nd May 2006, he was captured on CCTV in the HSBC bank attempting to cash 4 cheques which belonged to Mr. Chappelow. There was evidence that he used Mr. Chappelow’s bank card and Mr. Chappelow’s sim card was used in Mr. Yam’s telephones. Mr. Yam gave evidence that he took the property from individuals - “gangsters” - and that he did so to “get alongside them”. The motivation was evidence in camera and cannot be speculated upon.
The prosecution case was that Mr. Chappelow had been leaving his house when he had discovered Mr. Yam stealing his mail and that there had been confrontation whereby Mr. Chappelow had “hightailed” into the back room in the house, been pursued by Mr. Yam and brutally murdered. This theory did not fit with the evidence which included that Mr. Chappelow walked with a stick and was increasingly frail, glasses were found near his body (he did not wear them going out), he was not wearing the distinctive long mac he always wore when he went outside, and his feet were partly under the furniture. There was no forensic evidence to link Mr. Yam to the property or Mr. Yam’s property to Mr. Chappelow. The forensic evidence was that there was “blood everywhere”. There were 8 cigarette stubs in the room next to the body with unknown DNA and unidentified footmarks on the paper and the body. Importantly, Mr. Yam presented as a man who would talk himself out of a situation and had no previous convictions or history of violence.
During appeals of the Contempt of Court Order, which, we submitted, in two High Court hearings (application back to trial Judge Ouseley and then a judicial review) and in the Supreme Court, was impeding Mr. Yam’s right to petition the ECtHR contrary to Article 34 of the ECHR, the reporting by Duncan Campbell of The Guardian resulting in contact being made by another resident of Downshire Hill, Jonathan Bean.
Mr. Bean informed us that he had contacted the police, about 9 months (mid February 20017) after Mr. Chappelow’s murder, when he had disturbed a mail thief in his porch. The man brandished a knife at him. Mr. Bean shut the door quickly. The man threatened him, shouting through the door that he would kill his wife and baby if he reported the matter to the police. He was a dark skinned man with a London accent. When Mr. Bean was sure that the man had gone, he went out into the porch. His mail had been stolen. He and his wife contacted financial institutions to prevent any fraud. Whilst reporting the crime, Mr. Bean expressed fear and concern to the police that the burglary might be linked to Mr. Chappelow’s murder. He was frightened that the murderer was about to strike again.
The police reassured Mr. Bean that there was no link as the person who had committed the murder was in prison. At that time, Mr. Yam was awaiting his trial, having pleaded not guilty. One of the officers who took the report had attended Mr. Chappelow’s home address the previous year. The crime report noted that Mr. Bean had been told there was no link to Mr. Chappelow’s murder. But the crime report was not added to the unused material schedules, nor was it disclosed to the prosecution lawyers in Mr. Yam’s case and so was not disclosed to his defence lawyers. Shortly after this incident Mr. Bean and his family moved to New York. It was upon their return when Mr. Bean read about Wang Yam’s fight against his conviction that Mr. Bean contacted The Guardian.
My instructing solicitors took two statements from Mr. Bean and an application was made to the to the CCRC. One general criticism I have seen of the CCRC is that it does not include the applicant’s lawyers in its investigations. My experience was the opposite. However, it might be unusual for the same lawyers to be representing the applicant some 10 years later. The work was substantial and, of course, completely unfunded for the lawyers.
I worked alongside the CCRC case review manager, Phil Pledger. My first contact with him was greeted by an extremely grateful email that I was the only one who had replied to him after months of his trying to contact others involved in the case, including the prosecution. It is a concern with these cases that lawyers in the prosecution move on and there does not appear to be a corporate prosecution memory. I struggled in a similar way with the civil actions.
Work with Phil included email correspondence and telephone conferences. He updated me on his investigations and I poured through my 160 Advices, Notes, Legal Arguments, draft admissions, email correspondence, disclosure applications, draft closing speeches, half time submissions, cross-examination preparation, examination-in-chief preparation, experts analysis, evidence of all the neighbours from Downshire Hill and started to formulate the arguments as to why Mr. Bean’s evidence would have made an impact upon the jury which would likely have resulted in a Not Guilty verdict. Mr. Yam had waived legal privilege and so I forwarded documents to assist. From my defending in the trials, I did not consider that he might have affected the verdict or that there was a possibility of this evidence affecting the verdict, rather, he would have made the difference to that majority conviction.
The case went before three CCRC Commissioners in 2016 and they decided to refer it back to the Court of Appeal. As the publicity continued around the civil actions I was heading up to the Supreme Court, a further witness contacted the press – this time the Camden New Journal – to provide information about Mr. Chappelow which contradicted the prosecution case that he was a recluse.
The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions. Where that went wrong is not the subject of this article. Wang Yam continues to write to me as he counts the days of his 20-year tariff, doubtlessly taking cold comfort from being one of the 4% to succeed with a CCRC referral.
Kirsty Brimelow QC was junior counsel in trials one and two with Geoffrey Robertson QC and Geoffrey Cox QC respectively. After her appointment as QC in 2011, she acted as leading counsel for Wang Yam (leading Nik Grubeck and joining with David Pannick QC in the Supreme Court) until 2017. Currently, she is pursuing the successful application to the ECtHR. A book has been written about the case “Blood on The Page” by Thomas Harding. She remains grateful to the work of Case Review Manager Phil Pledger.
If you would like to talk to Kirsty Brimelow QC about any of the issues in this article please email here.
[1] The CCRC is expressly authorised to overlook two of the limitations to its own authority in exceptional cases. So, in such exceptional cases, it can make a reference even where the case has not previously been subject to appeal or are relying on arguments which have previously been considered and rejected at earlier appeals.
http://doughty-street-chambers.newsweaver.com/Appeals/s8x98lrldfq
-
Both the Paul Blackburn and Stephen Downing cases feature in Dr Michael Naughton’s (with Gabe Tan) book ‘Claims of Innocence’ http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Claims-of-Innocence.pdf
as does the case of Robert Brown https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/spent-25-years-jail-after-16355857
Investigative journalist Eamon O'Neill campaigned for Robert Brown and was a contributor to Michael Naughton’s book
Found Eamon O’Neill’s comment here https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000cbnj/the-scandals-that-shocked-scotland-series-1-episode-5
@ approx 25.00 highly manipulative
‘If he HAD (his emphasis) murdered Annie Walsh in 1977 he would have been really well looked after on the way out of prison”
Think he means - if Robert Brown hadn’t redacted his confession and had carried out offender behaviour courses..
If there is evidence to show Robert Browns factual innocence where is and what efforts are people like Robert Brown, Eamon O’Neill and anyone else involved with the case making to help bring to justice the real killer?
What efforts have been made since his release from prison? Surely Robert Brown wants to clear his name and show he’s actually factually innocent?
-
Found Eamon O’Neill’s comment here https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000cbnj/the-scandals-that-shocked-scotland-series-1-episode-5
@ approx 25.00 highly manipulative
‘If he HAD (his emphasis) murdered Annie Walsh in 1977 he would have been really well looked after on the way out of prison”
Think he means - if Robert Brown hadn’t redacted his confession and had carried out offender behaviour courses..
If there is evidence to show Robert Browns factual innocence where is and what efforts are people like Robert Brown, Eamon O’Neill and anyone else involved with the case making to help bring to justice the real killer?
What efforts have been made since his release from prison? Surely Robert Brown wants to clear his name and show he’s actually factually innocent?
According to Eamon O’Neill, “the Court of Appeal agreed Robert Brown was factually innocent in their judgement”
I’ve not been able to find the judgement but surely if the above were true Robert Brown wouldn’t have stated last year,
“I’d rather be put on trial again and be declared factually innocent.”
https://www.clydebankpost.co.uk/news/17417149.clydebanks-robert-brown-denounces-uk-supreme-court-ruling/
-
‘Justice must be seen to be done by Michael Naughton Nov 2008
‘the CCRC has always prided itself on its independence and it has striven to assure the public that it is committed to the plight of the wrongly convicted.
It has sought faith in its operations and Foster's immediate predecessors have indeed been independent from the system:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/20/justice-law
New crime law, old police culture:
Has the new miscarriage of justice watchdog got what it takes to carry out its own investigations into misconduct?
By Patricia Wynn Davies -April 1997
It's a question of a ”completely different mindset". That was how Dr Eric Shepherd, the forensic psychologist who first cast doubt on the Bridgewater murder convictions, last week summed up the real, as opposed to the theoretical, world of police investigations.
Dr Shepherd, an adviser to both police and defence lawyers, was spotlighting the potentially lethal mixture of the prevailing police culture and the new regime for restricting the disclosure of evidence in the 1996 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, which comes into effect today, following the minimum of opposition in Parliament. The biggest test for the members of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the new miscarriage of justice watchdog which also begins work today, is whether they understand that cultural message. And the biggest test of that will be their approach to re-investigations, particularly the extent to which they will be content to allow the police to continue investigating themselves.
Just as the Bridgewater case showed just how poor successive police inquiries were at uncovering a miscarriage of justice, the 1996 Act (which in most cases lets the investigating police officer decide what is disclosed to defence solicitors) is a potent argument for a fundamental change of attitude. The members of the commission should consider what Dr Shepherd and Roger Ede, secretary to the Law Society's criminal law committee, have to say about the cultural question.
The community and the courts," they write in their book Active Defence, published last week, "are led to believe that the evidence presented in cases by the prosecution, and upon which they rely, is the product of a quality investigative service rendered by police officers, civilian support staff and forensic scientists who are professionally trained, who are subject to supervision and quality controls, who have open minds, who are committed to exposing to the prosecution and the defence the gaps and anomalies in the police investigation, the police representation of the case and the prosecution evidence. The reality does not support the belief. What is presented to the court in all too many cases is a complex, collaborative illusion."
The truth, they say, is that many police officers and even forensic scientists are untrained for their investigative tasks, there is no real supervision, there are no real quality controls, and there are strong group pressures on police officers to do what they have always done - attach criminality to the suspect in the frame.
In a climate where "zero tolerance" extends only to criminality, and not to deficiencies in the justice system, there is no reason to expect that culture to change. The 1996 Act - the result of one of the most effective lobbying campaigns by the police - leaves officers to make key decisions about the disclosure of material to the defence at the very time they are building a case for the prosecution. But the mindset in the police station, which views the defence as a hindrance to the conviction of the guilty rather than a safeguard against getting it wrong, is very different.
Because the Act ignores the real world of police investigations, in effect expecting a police officer to reveal weaknesses in his own case, a supine Criminal Cases Review Commission could ensure that future miscarriages go undetected. So will the commission be content to simply hand over investigations to police officers? Or will it appreciate that requiring police officers conducting a re-investigation to dismantle a case constructed by their peers calls for a change in the professional habits of a lifetime?
Do the commission's members accept that it is the systemic failure by the police and the prosecution to disclose evidence inconvenient to their case which has caused the most serious miscarriages of justice over the past 20 years? Are they alive to the re-introduction of a new culture of non-disclosure?
With one or two exceptions - such as Dr James MacKeith, consultant forensic psychiatrist at the Maudsley hospital and an expert in false confessions - the membership of the commission has not inspired confidence. The chairman, Sir Frederick Crawford, is a former plasma scientist and university administrator and is probably better known for his prominence as a freemason; Fiona King is a former senior Crown prosecutor; Laurence Elks is a solicitor who used to specialise in takeovers; David Kyle is another senior Crown prosecutor and former government lawyer; John Leckey has been HM Coroner for Greater Belfast since 1992; Jill Fort, a barrister, is an immigration adjudicator and chairman of a VAT tribunal; Baden Skitt was an assistant commissioner with the Metropolitan Police; John Knox, an accountant, was deputy director of the Serious Fraud Office until last year; Karamjit Singh is a Civil Service Commissioner and former member of the Police Complaints Authority; Leonard Leigh is professor of criminal law at the London School of Economics.
The Home Office was pleased to announce the inclusion of three "lay" members when the long-awaited list was unveiled in January. What experience will they bring? Edward Weiss chairs Lloyd's Syndicate Loss Reviews and is a former director of Chubb, the security firm; Anthony Foster is a former chief executive of ICI Chlorochemicals; Barry Capon is a recently retired council chief executive. No one is questioning the integrity of any of the members, but where is the expert for the defence?
How many of the members are aware of the huge disparity in resources and investigative powers between the police and the defence? How many understand the increasing difficulty in getting adequate legal aid to deconstruct the case theory?
Paradoxically, one solution would be to take a cue from the world from which some of these commission members are drawn. When things go awry in the City, the Department of Trade and Industry can appoint senior QCs and accountants, equipped with powers to demand answers, to investigate alleged wrong-doings. The appointment of similarly armed senior barristers and solicitors, independent of the police or any other government agency, to ask the questions would be one way of building confidence in the system. But the commission's news release last week did not make encouraging reading, highlighting those powers it does not have, but which the police could exercise on its behalf, rather than those it has.
Yet we have now a machinery for examining miscarriages that for the first time is independent of government. The commission will be empowered to use the police for a re-investigation, but not obliged to; it will be able to exert, if it chooses, hands-on control of a re-investigation; it has wide powers, if it chooses to use them, to call for the disclosure of material, which the defence and even the prosecution may never have seen - and disclose it to the applicant.
Here is the opportunity for an independent body to effectively challenge the deep resistance of the system to admitting it may have been wrong. And since the passing of its mirror image, the 1996 Act, never has there been such a clear need to do so. Has this commission got what it takes?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/new-crime-law-old-police-culture-1264606.html
-
Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
Re meeting with @ccrcupdate yesterday. We will see, but it seemed constructive and they seemed to take onboard some of my critiques and suggestions on how they might improve their communications and assistance to applicants who claim innocence. I need to write an article.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1217147041027121154
Hanksoff03
@hanksoff03
2h
2 main planks of prosecution case HAVE GONE!There`s nothing left-I don`t know why that`s not enough to overturn a wrongful conviction:.( 23/03/2020 will be the TENTH ANNIV, imagine, all these yrs locked away4a murder committed by a criminal. Wonder what the criminal is doing now
https://mobile.twitter.com/hanksoff03/status/1221130176534392839
This poor women
https://mobile.twitter.com/hanksoff03/status/1198312525504364544
Hanksoff03
@hanksoff03
Thank you for empowering http://RobinGarbuttOfficial.com Doctor
@EmpowerInnocent : )
https://mobile.twitter.com/hanksoff03/status/1216405657647243265
-
‘Britain could learn from America’ 30th December 2019
CIUs versus CCRC
Britain could learn lessons from America when it comes to tackling miscarriages of justice, according to an expert who has studied both systems. Marika Henneberg compared Conviction Integrity Units (CIU) in the US, like the one involved in the Baltimore case, with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in England and Wales. The CCRC – an independent, taxpayer-funded body established in 1997 to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice – has been criticised for the low success rate of applicants, with only around 2% of the cases it looks at being referred to the Court of Appeal. Some of its investigations have been thwarted when police forces declined to release evidence that led to a conviction.
By contrast, the 50 CIUs around the US are set up inside prosecutors’ offices, allowing easier access to evidence. Ms Henneberg, a senior lecturer at the University of Portsmouth and head of the university’s Criminal Justice Clinic, which helps prisoners with appeals, said that establishing CIU-style units within regional offices of the Crown Prosecution Service could be an effective way to investigate wrongful convictions in the UK. In a paper published in 2019 in the International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, she wrote: “The appeal system in England and Wales urgently needs to be reformed. CIUs modelled on those in the USA may be the solution to problems relating to disclosure, both pre-trial and post-conviction, and may be a more efficient solution than the CCRC. The combination of the CCRC being under-resourced and risk averse on the one hand, and the lack of third party access [to evidence] and people willing and able to help potential CCRC applicants with their applications on the other hand, is very problematic. Finding conclusive evidence of innocence (or guilt!) strengthens the integrity of any criminal justice system, and CIUs operating out of the 14 CPS areas in England and Wales would be well placed to carry out such important work.”
However, other experts point out that CIUs cover only a small portion of the US, are often underfunded and vary in effectiveness. Dr Hannah Quirk of King’s College London said CIUs face potential conflicts of interest when prosecutors investigate convictions secured by their colleagues. She said: “If I was wrongly convicted, I would rather be here than there.”
Professor Kent Roach of the University of Toronto said: “Some CIUs in the US are quite successful in exonerating people – as in this horrible case involving Chestnut, Watkins and Stewart … Other units are, however, less successful. Much depends on the initiative and resources put into the specific unit.”
https://insidetime.org/britain-could-learn-from-america/
-
Legal Aid and Legal Representatives
“Following a successful bid to conduct research on behalf of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), Professor Richard Vogler, Dr Lucy Welsh, Dr Liz McDonnell, Dr Susann Wiedlitzka and Dr Amy Clarke are working to examine the effects of Legal Aid changes on applications to the CCRC.
The project, which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, looks at levels of legal representation, the quality of applications being made to the CCRC and the use of evidence in applications.
https://legalaidandrepresentatives.wordpress.com/
‘The Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) was established in 1997 to independently review potential miscarriages of justice, following a period of public concern surrounding wrongful convictions. Since then, the CCRC has examined more than 20,000 applications, most of them involving serious cases tried in the Crown Courts.
Application rates have increased considering in recent years and, in 2019, the CCRC suggested that the application rate was likely to rise further “thanks to ongoing justice system issues,” including reductions in legal aid funding and an increase in ‘litigants in person’. According to the CCRC, close to 90% of applications were made without the help of a lawyer in 2018/19.
In our research, we are investigating the effects of recent changes to legal aid and changing levels of legal representation on applications to the CCRC. The project is comprised of five stages:
A statistical analysis of CCRC data (1997 to 2017)
An analysis of sampled case files held at the CCRC
A survey of defence lawyers who specialise in publicly-funded defence work
Qualitative interviews with defence lawyers, paralegals etc.
Focus groups with staff at the CCRC
We will be reporting our findings directly to the CCRC who, in turn, will be reporting to the appropriate public bodies and agencies, including the Justice Select Committee, as part of its remit to improve the criminal justice system.
https://legalaidandrepresentatives.wordpress.com/about-2/
Reporting and recruiting
‘It’s been a busy time for the research team as we move from the stage 3 survey to stage 4 interviews with legal professionals.
At the start of November, Professor Richard Vogler and Dr Lucy Welsh represented the project at a CCRC Research Advisory Board (RAB) meeting, where they shared some preliminary findings from our survey of legal professionals who have experience of doing publicly funded CCRC work.
While the team and the research are completely independent of the CCRC (and are funded by the ESRC, not the CCRC), these meetings provide an opportunity for the team to feed back to the CCRC and other interested parties. The RAB consists of members of the CCRC, members of the legal profession and other academics. Their meetings also provide an opportunity to share ideas about how the research can proceed in the most productive way.
A few days later, Dr Lucy Welsh and Dr Amy Clarke attended the Criminal Law Solicitors Association Conference and AGM in Bath, as exhibitors. The aim was to raise awareness of the project among criminal defence solicitors, while also gaining insight into key debates and areas of concern among professionals.
Several lawyers, while informally talking about the research, indicated that they simply don’t think CCRC work is financially viable. In general, the mood of the conference was downbeat – lawyers were despondent about cuts to legal aid, concerned about retention and recruitment within the profession, and fearful about the precarity and sustainability of the criminal justice system in general.
https://legalaidandrepresentatives.wordpress.com/news/
The Westminster Commission on Miscarriages of Justice
‘This month, Dr Lucy Welsh submitted evidence to the Westminster Commission on Miscarriages of Justice. The Commission, which is jointly chaired by Baroness Stern and Lord Garnier QC, was established by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Miscarriages of Justice (APPGMJ) to investigate the criminal justice system’s ability to identify and rectify miscarriages of justice.
The inquiry, which closes tomorrow, is particularly interested in: (1) The CCRC’s ability to deal effectively with alleged miscarriages of justice; (2) Whether statutory or other changes are needed to assist the CCRC to carry out is function; and (3) The extent to which the CCRC’s role is hampered by failings or issues elsewhere in the criminal justice system.
In her submission, Dr Welsh drew attention to four challenges faced by the CCRC in deadling effectively with alleged miscarriages of justice. These include:
The Court of Appeal’s reluctance to interfere with convictions and particular reluctance to go behind the decision of the jury. This raises the bar of which cases can be referred by the CCRC.
Systemic funding problems across institutions of criminal justice, including the police, and Crown Prosecution Service, and expert witness services, which combine to make miscarriages of justice more likely.
The inability of potential applicants to obtain funding for good quality legal advice, which passes significant burdens on to the CCRC.
Demands for ever more efficient case handling, which have resulted in frequent internal policy and processual changes.
https://legalaidandrepresentatives.wordpress.com/news/
-
Investigative journalist Eamon O'Neill campaigned for Robert Brown and was a contributor to Michael Naughton’s book
Dr Eamonn O’Neill wrote an article in 2012 here https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/40223/1/SJ_Miscarriages_of_Justice_LOW_RES.pdf headed,
’Remember your roots’(p 42)
Excerpt:
‘Some have criticised the recent wave of negative comment on the CCRC from academic, press and campaigning quarters. I understand this touchiness and resentment but I also reject it. The CCRC is a publicly-funded body, unique internationally, and therefore holds a special but still publicly-accountable position. No more than anyone should have stayed silent about the plodding nature of C3 back in the bad-old days, should anyone now feel it’s wrong to critically engage with the work its successors at the CCRC are doing.
The key criticism I hear time and again, however, is that the ‘desktop review’ approach of the CCRC reflects an institutional unwillingness to properly ‘investigate’ cases. I don’t believe that is true. What I do believe however, is that the CCRC’s lack of early-stage investigation into cases reflects staff inexperience (from top to bottom) in understanding how some door-knocking, witness-chasing and fieldwork can save time, money and effort and sometimes yield astonishing results. Now, a kneejerk solution to that would be to bring in some old coppers – like MI5 employs so-called, ‘re-treads’ (retired employees hired on a ‘consultancy basis’) for its vetting process – and send them out to ask questions. But that would be a massive mistake, since experience shows that the last thing those involved in alleged wrongful convictions want to see is an old detective.
“The key criticism I hear time and again, however, is that the ‘desktop review’ approach of the CCRC reflects an institutional unwillingness to properly ‘investigate’ cases”
Instead, the CCRC should look at its roots and understand how it would not exist had it not been for investigative journalists and their unique work. Moreover, it was the fruits of their techniques, practices and investigative models that led to the overturning of high-profile cases that shook the foundations of the British legal system and forced the CCRC into becoming a reality. The cases involving input and leadership from investigative journalists stretch back over a century and have touched every jurisdiction with the UK. The CCRC has been in existence for less than a decade and a half and is very much a work in progress, but evidence indicates this body needs to radically change its approach to the former, in order to achieve more of the latter.
As part of their 2nd review into Simon Hall’s case, in April 2013 the CCRC sent a retired Detective Superintendent to interview Hall.
-
In December 2018 Professor Julie Price had an article published on the Justice Gap website headed,
‘This conference is about hope. We are the people who have to make the change’
Innovation of Justice came to Manchester last month, the brainchild of Liam Allan. Liam is the media’s non-disclosure ‘poster boy’ who spent two years in a limbo that could so easily have seen him wrongfully convicted of rape.
A definite theme emerged from the heart-rending stories of the powerful speakers – that ‘ordinary’ members of the public have no idea about the multiple, serious, problems with the criminal justice system. The Secret Barrister has re-scratched the surface, but there is a pressing need to work together to find a way of getting the message out there, and to engage politicians.
‘If it could happen to Liam, it could happen to anyone,’ said his barrister Julia Smart. Her ‘kitchen table epiphany’ was a stroke of good fortune that could so easily instead have seen Liam serving a 10 years plus prison sentence for something he hadn’t done.
These conferences are as impressive and uplifting as they are deeply troubling and depressing, because of the consistency of the message and experience: deja vu comes around – again. They expose the ongoing deep-rooted intellectual dishonesty of a system that is hell bent on saving the reputation of the establishment at the expense of destroying the lives of many innocent people and their loved ones. And, outside of audiences typical of this one, no-one seems really to be listening.
Too much Brexit on politicians’ plates perhaps.
Does Liam think that’s going to change? He told me:
‘The attendance was a huge shock. 150-200 people gathering in a room the day after black Friday was just incredible. But what really amazed me was seeing everyone interact, learn and support with issues they wouldn’t normally come into contact with. There was a real buzz in the room, filled with hope that there are better days ahead. Each and every person we spoke to has been spreading the word of the campaign and the numbers are really starting to increase. There is no better time than right now and for the first time, I believe even the innocents who have not yet had their justice, have something to hold onto, something to believe in. What we are creating doesn’t feel like a bunch of people just coming together for selfish interests or political agendas, it feels like a family is being built… One that supports each other through the hardest times and forms the changes that we would want for ourselves. It’s really something special and thus far, successful.’
Liam Allan
The bonds that Liam is developing with long-standing ‘heroes’ of the miscarriages of justice arena were evident, and touching.
‘Most people don’t have any dealings with the criminal justice system, so it doesn’t affect them.’ So said Eddie Gilfoyle to an audience that clearly considered his unsung hero status to be wholly justified.
Eddie served 18 years for a crime he says, and virtually everyone except the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) believes, he didn’t commit. He observed how ‘rotten, dishonest and cruel our justice system is‘ and how he had ‘had his eyes opened because of the foolish trust I put in our criminal justice system….and there are hundreds of others similarly let down. Even if you follow all the rules, the system makes it impossible for you to access the evidence you need’.
Eddie (justifiably) could not contain his anger that the CCRC (and previously the police and CPS) had consistently failed to tell him about the undisclosed evidence.
‘The CCRC have now become part of the problem. The appeal court are just as bad – they never look at the case as a whole – they just cherry pick. They are there to uphold the verdict of the jury at all costs. They are there to protect the establishment that they are part of. The Court of Appeal cannot be independent. What chance do people like me have?
People like me paid a price for that dishonesty – all that matters is that the public believes the criminal justice system works. Fighting the establishment that is determined to win. Where do people like me go for help?‘
Eddie Gilfoyle
He told the audience that his MP, Lord Hunt, was with him every step of the way and was equally frustrated by the Establishment rules. But still Eddie is fighting – without success. It seems that common sense and common decency haven’t yet made an appearance in Eddie’s case. It beggars belief that the CCRC have recently declined to refer his case.
Eddie’s powerful sentiments were amplified by his sister Sue Caddick, whose life has also been ruined by Eddie’s situation. ‘The loneliest place in the world is fighting a miscarriage of justice,’ she said. ‘Truth isn’t even a consideration – it is lost in a game they play in the courtroom. To them, the end justifies the means. It can never be a fair game if one side is cheating and not doing what they should.’
‘Excruciating‘ is the single word she chose to illustrate the family’s feelings, but it’s clear that this simple word cannot do justice to the depth of harm, despair and trauma suffered by the family.
‘Non-disclosure is a namby-pamby name they have made up to make it more acceptable to the public. It is hiding evidence. No amount of underfunding… excuses this blatant dishonesty.’
Sue Caddick, Eddie Gilfoyle’s sister
Eddie and Sue must have called upon huge reserves of personal restraint when they heard David James Smith, a recent former CCRC Commissioner, read from a script that could have been written for him by the CCRC’s public relations office. Liam, admirably, thanked Mr Smith for his courage in speaking at the Manchester conference, being in a clear minority in that room. But I personally cannot resist concluding that Mr Smith was, far more than I have seen previously, out of his comfort zone at this conference. He has regularly attended many public events flying the CCRC flag – fair play to him for that.
But I was left with the distinct impression this time that his justification of the CCRC’s role and recent decisions was unsustainable and disingenuous – no more than lip service. To me, it seemed that he was not comfortable with what he was saying. His words were a hollow irrelevance to the incredulous audience, who were far more impressed and engaged by the building momentum of the other speakers’ diverse stories on the same haunting theme – our justice system isn’t working.
If the CCRC considers that the Court of Appeal is part of their problem, then this was another lost opportunity to start to address that fundamental issue, and to start building good faith relationships with key stakeholders, many of whom are reaching the end of their tether.
In closing the conference, Liam remarked that: ‘This conference is about hope. We are the people who have to make this change. We started this because we were lost and didn’t know where to go. The politicians are paying attention.’
Those of us who have been around this arena for many years are a bit long in the tooth. We remain out of choice, but innocent people and their families don’t have that choice. We have seen and heard all of this before. In the university world, we had huge hope and excitement when the Innocence Network UK (INUK) under Dr Michael Naughton’s leadership emerged 14 years ago. Some of our colleagues have been active in the campaigning world for much longer that that.
Take, for example, my colleague Dr Dennis Eady, who is still nobly ploughing on after more than 25 years, despite at least 17 case setbacks in his role at Cardiff’s innocence project. That represents 17 people (and there are many more) who may be innocent, but can’t get their cases heard.
Take Glyn Maddocks too. This veteran criminal appeals solicitor has very recently been on the receiving end of the CCRC’s unjustifiable and disgraceful decision not to refer a ‘classic’ miscarriage of justice case to the Court of Appeal. Glyn has been part of the eminent team fighting for about 24 years on this case. Yet deaf CCRC ears take no heed of obvious police mistakes that must surely make that conviction unsafe.
Take Tony Stock’s legal team, who are still fighting after the Court of Appeal has four times refused to do the honourable and honest thing and admit that this cannot in any sense of the word be considered a safe conviction.
Take JENGbA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association). They thought they had ‘won’ in 2016 when the Supreme Court recognised in the case of Jogee that the law had many years ago taken a wrong turning. Yet still they see the Court of Appeal disagree that ‘substantial injustice’ has been caused to people like Laura Mitchell.
Take, too, the Centre for Criminal Appeals (CCA). That not-for-profit, campaigning for reform, law firm has just launched its ‘Show Us The Evidence’ campaign. In the best justice system in the world, do we really need a campaign calling for the right to see what evidence was used to convict people? REALLY? The answer is – YES, we do need this campaign. We currently don’t have that right. Joe Public probably doesn’t know that.
So, please don’t blame us for being naturally pessimistic that things will change – we have good reason to be cynical. But we old-timers can’t resist a bit of hope, especially when it is accompanied by youth, a fresh outlook and a personal experience that has resulted in a media love-fest.
Liam (and Annie, and the IoJ team) – thank you very much. There is a lot of renewed hope on your young shoulders, and we want to do what we can to support you.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/this-conference-is-about-hope-we-are-the-people-who-have-to-make-the-change/
-
.
Admin pls remove
-
The Criminal Cases Review Commission joined twitter in April 2016
They have 2602 followers
and are following 31
-
LAWS31062 Miscarriages of Justice Claire McGourlay 2018-2019
By Claire Mcgourlay
an academic
Andrew Green and Fintan Walker also involved in course delivery
Actual innocence: when justice goes wrong and how to make it right - Jim Dwyer, Peter Neufeld, Barry Scheck 2003
Book Not essential reading but a good overview of the USA system
Innocents betrayed: a true story of justice abandoned - Sandra Lean 2018
Book Further
Informative Pre-course Reading 2 items
These are not hard books to read and should give you a sense of what the course will be about.
The secret barrister: stories of the law and how it's broken 2018
Book Also available as an eBook via VLE books - follow the 'Online Resource' link
Guilty until proven innocent: the crisis in our justice system - Jon Robbins 2018
Book Also available as an EBSCO eBook - follow the 'Online Resource' link
https://manchester.rl.talis.com/lists/778B24E0-BE72-A647-1228-AC3012287E29.html
*&^^&
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=89.msg494098#msg494098
Claire McGourlay says:
April 7, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Although this letter was not an open letter about you here is our answer to you.
Since you took an arbitrary decision two years ago to close down the network that linked innocence projects (rather than reform it into a democratic mutual support organization), you are not entitled to statistics from us (particularly when you tweet about how useless we all are-very unnecessary in my opinion and I can’t reply as you have blocked me and my students) and yes we have moved on and are doing very well indeed.
We have no fear of transparency, so here is some information.
We have 13 active clients, not including dormant cases i.e. those that we can’t work on, or which are with the CCRC.
We also did a significant amount of work on Danny Major’s case but no longer can as we’ve been prevented by the intervention of Greater Manchester Police.
How long do we work on a case? Varies, and as you well know, is out of our control: delays caused by CPS, lawyers, clients, discoveries of potential fresh evidence that have to be followed up, clients becoming uncontactable at times.
Requests/applications to the police or CPS for access to exhibits or biological samples for testing by new techniques? Irrelevant in most of our cases (only 1 of our cases involved this).
Applications to the CCRC? One refusal and 3 cases currently under consideration by CCRC. Additionally, actively compiling applications on behalf of 4 clients. Others are delayed due to new lines of inquiry opening up which are likely to produce additional significant fresh evidence, which we are pursuing on the instructions of our clients.
As you are well aware there are no simple answers to such complex questions where complex and detailed responses are required. We do not need to spend further time on this, as we have cases to work on. All our clients are informed about how we work when we offer to take on their cases, and kept informed of progress or problems when they occur. We also publish an annual report and anyone is welcome to it.
In a similar spirit of transparency, I trust that you will answer my following questions:
1. In May 2013 (the latest time for which the Inquiry newsletter – edition 8 – posts such data), INUK claims that 110 cases had been referred to member projects, and there was a further waiting list of 113. Please let us know how those figures are broken down and what happened to those on the waiting list when you disbanded INUK.
2. As regards INUK’s current status, there is clear confusion about what INUK now is, and the website is misleading. It is not a membership organisation; it is not a network; it does not represent the UK. Will you please urgently amend the website wording to clarify that confusion so that vulnerable people looking for help know exactly what INUK now is and what it is not?
3. You say you are doing casework. How many cases are you working on, and what stages are they at? Who is doing this casework?
https://www.thejusticegap.com/open-letter-ccrc-2/
Professor Claire McGourlay
https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/claire.mcgourlay.html
‘Crime Lab Reports: An Anthology on Forensic Science in the Era of Criminal Justice Reform’
by John M Collins refers to Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZEOwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=crime+lab+hohn+m+collins+barry+scheck&source=bl&ots=fhnvufqrKi&sig=ACfU3U3_4ALwVH1OFKA0eFcKzw570IqaRw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjigK7citHnAhXirnEKHSLnDFYQ6AEwAXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=crime%20lab%20hohn%20m%20collins%20barry%20scheck&f=false
CCRC
@ccrcupdate
4m
Looking forward to talking this afternoon about
@ccrcupdate
at #LAWS31062
@law_u[
Claire McGourlay
@CMcgourlay
@law_uom
@SoSSUndergrad
#LAWS31062 see you all at 1pm..
https://mobile.twitter.com/CMcgourlay/status/1228298757281853440
-
CCRC
@ccrcupdate
The @ccrcupdate case of D referred for appeal today. Details here: https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-case-of-d-for-appeal/ https://mobile.twitter.com/ccrcupdate/status/1228302583728627715
“The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the case of D for appeal.
The Commission has decided to refer D’s prison sentence because it has identified new information which it considers raises a real possibility that the sentence will be reduced on appeal.
The sentence has been referred on the basis of sensitive information. Issues relating to safety and security mean that the Commission can provide no further details in case they lead to, or contribute to, the identification of D.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-case-of-d-for-appeal/
-
‘Crime Lab Reports: An Anthology on Forensic Science in the Era of Criminal Justice Reform’
by John M Collins refers to Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZEOwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=crime+lab+hohn+m+collins+barry+scheck&source=bl&ots=fhnvufqrKi&sig=ACfU3U3_4ALwVH1OFKA0eFcKzw570IqaRw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjigK7citHnAhXirnEKHSLnDFYQ6AEwAXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=crime%20lab%20hohn%20m%20collins%20barry%20scheck&f=false
CCRC
@ccrcupdate
4m
Looking forward to talking this afternoon about
@ccrcupdate
at #LAWS31062
@law_u[
Claire McGourlay
@CMcgourlay
@law_uom
@SoSSUndergrad
#LAWS31062 see you all at 1pm..
https://mobile.twitter.com/CMcgourlay/status/1228298757281853440
Claire McGourlay
@CMcgourlay
Thank you @ccrcupdate for coming to speak to my students today.
@law_uom
@SoSSUndergrad
@UoMPolitics
@OfficialUoM
#LAWS31062 - also looking forward to hearing from
@MarkNewbyqsj
next week and
@Mark_George_QC
in a few weeks time and then
@JusticeGap
after Easter. ❤️ this course.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CMcgourlay/status/1228344793354379264
-
Claire McGourlay
@CMcgourlay
Thank you @ccrcupdate for coming to speak to my students today.
@law_uom
@SoSSUndergrad
@UoMPolitics
@OfficialUoM
#LAWS31062 - also looking forward to hearing from
@MarkNewbyqsj
next week and
@Mark_George_QC
in a few weeks time and then
@JusticeGap
after Easter. ❤️ this course.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CMcgourlay/status/1228344793354379264
Mark Newby was once an advisor to the Innocence Network UK, alongside others
Philip Evans, Barrister, QEB Hollis Whiteman
Mark Newby, Solicitor Advocate, Quality Solicitors Jordans
Allan Jamieson, The Forensic Institute
Julie Allard, Consultant Forensic Scientist
Nigel Hodge, Consultant Forensic Scientist
Neil Smith, Data Locator 2202
Tom Laidlaw, Head of Academic and Public Sector Marketing, LexisNexis UK
http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/about-us/people
-
CCRC
@ccrcupdate
In the course of a year @ccrcupdate analyses many judgments to keep up with the changing legal landscape as it emerges in the decisions of the courts. In this thread we've picked out six of the most interesting from 2019. Each case appears with a summary and link to the judgment.
10:13 AM · Feb 18, 2020·Twitter Web App
R v Tas is a joint enterprise case where the Court of Appeal (CoA) dismissed the appeal of a defendant who took part in an attack in which someone was stabbed. The defendant was unaware of the knife carried by his co-defendant and of their intent to use it http://bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2018/2603.html&query=(Ali)+AND+(Tas)+AND+(v)+AND+(R)2…
In R v Coker the CoA clarified the test for s.4(3)(b) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; there must be a supply of drugs in which the defendant participates with knowledge of the enterprise. The Court expressed concerns over the wording in two practitioner texts. http://bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/420.html&query=(title:(+R+))+AND+(title:(+v+))+AND+(title:(+Coker+))3…
R v D is a significant case that provides guidance for lower courts on the general principles on the approach they should take when sentencing young offenders. https://bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/42.html&query=(title:(+D…+))
In R v Pringle the CoA quashed the conviction of a defendant who had difficulty communicating and was not given an intermediary when his co-defendant was. http://bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/1722.html&query=(title:(+R+))+AND+(title:(+v+))+AND+(title:(+Pringle…+))
In R v Reynolds the CoA stressed the importance of a succinct summing up in the longest and most complex of cases. They also gave guidance and set principles that judges should follow when summing up the case. http://bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/2145.html&query=(title:(+R+))+AND+(title:(+v+))+AND+(title:(+reynolds…+))
In R v Adams the CoA quashed rape and historic sexual offences convictions because the judge didn't direct the jury to consider the evidence of each victim separately in circumstances where he should have. http://bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/1363.html&query=(title:(+R+))+AND+(title:(+v+))+AND+(title:(+Adams…+))
https://mobile.twitter.com/ccrcupdate/status/1229710415174815744