The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) was set up in 1996 to help investigate possible miscarriages of justice. Ann Craven from Innocent questions whether the CCRC is fulfilling its important role as effectively as it should be.

Many people were apprehensive about how the CCRC would work, but the Commission members assured the doubters that they would examine every application sent to them, even if it was a piece of paper written by a prisoner. Nearly every case was to be investigated, but this would take time - at first it was six months, then it stretched to three years, but the applicants, knowing they would eventually get a caseworker to investigate their cases, were prepared to wait.

There are two lists in the CCRC, the 'priority' list and the 'at liberty' list. Those who apply whilst not in prison go on the latter, those who apply while in prison go on the former. What many prisoners don't know is that when their release date arrives, and they have not been allotted a caseworker, their file goes onto the 'at liberty' list. This list does not move as quickly as the other, so the waiting time can be approaching five years.

Recently the CCRC has cleared a lot of the backlog of cases by saying that there is nothing in the case to refer it back to the Courts. In reality they are not doing what they promised to do when they started reviewing their first cases in 1997. Caseworkers seem to be making decisions on the basis of what they read in the paperwork submitted to them, without leaving their desk or making further investigations. There have been some very good caseworkers employed by the CCRC, but more often than not these people end up on the sick and then leave. Some of the caseworkers will not investigate cases thoroughly and if you get one of these caseworkers, then you have no chance of clearing your name.

[Case one: the caseworker stated that they were getting medical experts to look at some of the paperwork and that more investigating needed to be done. This caseworker went off sick, the case was referred to another person who stated that they were not getting medical experts to look into the case, so the case was rejected. There is evidence to prove this person's innocence but the CCRC is not interested.]

[Case two: this case was investigated by outside sources, they found new evidence, which was checked out thoroughly. This new evidence proved that the man who was convicted could not have committed the crime. The evidence was then submitted to the caseworker. He tried to explain away the new evidence by changing the case submitted to the court by the prosecution. He failed to order the public authority to preserve the records that they held which would confirm the viability of the fresh evidence. Instead of talking to the new witnesses, he talked to their manager, who had no personal knowledge of the evidence and tried to explain it away. Under pressure, the caseworker contacted one of the witnesses, but by then the witness had been put off. Instead of speaking directly to the police officers who investigated the case, he spoke to their senior officer. Requests that someone else should be assigned to the investigation of the case were ignored. Following his recommendations, the CCRC refused to refer the case for a new appeal. The convicted man's family and supporters are considering seeking a judicial review to challenge the CCRC's decision.]

[Case three: the CCRC was asked to examine police notebooks, reports, audio tapes and statements from prosecution witnesses who claim they made their statements under duress. They failed to do any of this. The key prosecution witness phoned the convicted prisoners family and told them she'd lied in court and the prisoner was innocent. The CCRC told the police who had investigated the case about this, and the police then persuaded the witness to change her story again. Following threats of legal action, the case has now been referred for a new appeal.]

These are just three cases which Innocent could cite, and although it is true to say that certain cases are indeed being investigated thoroughly, getting a good caseworker is like playing the lottery and that is simply not good enough with so much at stake. It is people's lives and futures that the CCRC is playing with.

None of the Commission members have had any previous experience with miscarriage of justice cases. Only one worked for the defence, for four years, after that the member worked for the prosecution. There is nobody who is experienced in the defence side of the law, so how can they judge what is or is not a miscarriage of justice? Now we have David Jessel  from Channel 4's Trial & Error who has become a commission member; the jury is out on him at this moment in time, we are waiting to see if he remembers his investigative reporting on cases or if he has loss of memory when it comes to cases. He knows how hard it is to find new evidence that can prove the innocence of a person. We do hope that he has not sold his soul for the job.

Things have changed in the last 12 months at the CCRC, but not for the better. It is no good sending a letter of complaint about your caseworker or anybody else to Sir Frederick Crawford. He does not answer any letters from the public – he passes them on to the person you have complained about, so they deal with complaints which have been made against them. If you are lucky and manage to get somebody else in the CCRC to look at the complaint that you have submitted, don't hold out too much hope that it will be properly investigated. It will not - because they are all of the same mind.

The CCRC is nearly at the end of its fourth year of reviewing cases and there is no improvement in its standards of investigation. Glenys Stacey, the chief executive who first organized the CCRC, has left; could it be she was no longer happy with how it was being run?

All we can hope for is that somebody will take charge of the CCRC and make sure that the work is done properly and effectively, without outside interference from any government department. Miscarriages of justice have to be cleared from the system, but not at the expense of people who are innocent of the crime of which they have been convicted.

If your application to the CCRC has not been handled in a satisfactory manner, please write to: Innocent, Dept 54, PO Box 282, Oldham, OL1 3FY  
 

INSIDE TIME is the national newspaper for prisoners and is published by The New Bridge - a charity founded in 1956 - which recruits and trains volunteers to visit prisoners and provides an employment service for ex-offenders. (It also contains the best cartoons ever. Ed.)

Contact
The New Bridge
27A Medway Street
London SW1P 2BD
Tel: 020 7976 0779