Author Topic: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.  (Read 528 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2018, 01:29:04 PM »
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((()*/

Offline Stephanie

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2018, 01:36:20 PM »
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((()*/


Offline Stephanie

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2018, 10:15:50 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 10:58:07 AM by Stephanie »

Offline Stephanie

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2018, 10:05:06 PM »
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/
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 10:52:40 PM by Stephanie »

Offline Stephanie

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2018, 06:37:06 AM »
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

Offline Stephanie

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2018, 10:35:07 AM »
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

Offline Stephanie

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2018, 06:32:00 PM »
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/

Offline Caroline

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2018, 07:52:12 PM »

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!  @)(++(*

Offline Stephanie

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2018, 10:30:22 PM »
"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

Offline Stephanie

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2018, 05:55:00 PM »
"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.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2018, 07:34:16 PM by Stephanie »

Offline Stephanie

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2018, 03:06:14 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

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/news/2018/article-by-dr-michael-naughton-published-in-the-british-journal-of-criminology.html

Offline Stephanie

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2018, 02:15:03 PM »
"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/

Offline Stephanie

Re: The CCRC to be reviewed following many complaints.
« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2018, 02:22:38 PM »
"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/


« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 02:35:25 PM by Stephanie »