shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

This article in todays Guardian shows the CCRC to be staffed with members from Crown Office:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment.../nov/20/justice-law?commentpage=1

Michael Naughton
guardian.co.uk, Thursday November 20 2008 07.00 GMT
Article history
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.

Our SCCRC are no bettter with our Chief Executive A Temp Judge Law Society Committee Member Lawyer and Chief Exec.

If this is not classed as a conflict of interest then there is something severely wrong.

Lydia · Joined: 06 Nov 2008 Posts: 82

Within any committee the chair must be totally trustworthy, put simply to reflect the power held by the chair.

This appointment is tantamount to Jack McConnell acting as first Minister in the absence of Alex Salmond.
_________________
We are the parents in Scotland denied justice for our children who had illegal post mortem's or had organs removed illegally at post mortem.

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 263 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

Michael Naughton's comments are very relevant to our situation in Scotland.

Given the enormous importance of the SCCRC to those suffering injustice we are right to be concerned re the culture of the SCCRC, its independence, remit and importantly its accountability and resources.

Although it is denied it seems as if all cases are not treated alike and it appears clear that the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi was treated entirely differently from say Wullie Beck’s or Willie Gage’s.

This is not to deny the enormity and political importance of the former but to the victim and their families their injustice matters above all else and requires equal treatment to the headline grabbing cases. After all an injustice, is an injustice, is an injustice!

Again despite denials I believe SCCRC resources are an issue or why do we have apparently straight forward reviews taking years to report on with a suspicion that in some cases corners are cut and vital witnesses not interviewed.

I still maintain that the SCCRC is culturally vulnerable despite the high quality of many of the members. The high percentage of members with legal connections makes this almost inevitable.

The time seems right for a total review of the SCCRC, its powers, aims, resources, structure, culture and accountability and its relation to the appeal courts, not in a spirit of anger but sober reflection.