Nutshells English Legal System by Penny Darbyshire

Author:Penny Darbyshire [Darbyshire, Penny]
Language: eng
Format: azw3
Tags: ebook
Publisher: Sweet & Maxwell
Published: 2016-02-29T00:00:00+00:00

THE POST-APPEAL STAGE: RE-EXAMINING ALLEGED MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE

Where a person thinks he has been wrongly convicted by a jury or magistrates, and he has lost an appeal or been refused leave to appeal, he may now seek the assistance of the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), or somebody else may petition them on his behalf. This is likely to be an MP, or a campaigning group, or an organisation such as JUSTICE. The CCRC was created by the 1995 Act. Its 11 members are appointed for five years. One-third must be legally qualified.

1. The CCRC is empowered to refer Crown Court convictions and sentences to the CA and summary convictions and sentences (made by the magistrates’ court) to the Crown Court.

2. It must “consider that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld, were the reference to be made” because of argument or evidence not raised earlier. These conditions appear rather restrictive but these are followed by a broad power to make a reference “if it appears to the Commission that there are exceptional circumstances which justify making it”.

3. It may not refer a conviction back to the CA just because the law has changed: Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s.42.

4. It may be directed by the CA to investigate a case, and

5. may be asked by the Home Secretary to consider a matter arising in his consideration of whether to exercise the prerogative of mercy.

6. The CCRC has powers to obtain documents and may direct investigations by police officers or another public body.

Although the CCRC is a welcome replacement for the former arrangements for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice (a handful of Home Office civil servants), the CCRC’s powers, resources and approach have been criticised. It has always had a backlog of thousands of cases awaiting investigation. Some critics, such as Duff, have said that the CCRC is preoccupied with trying to second guess the CA. For statistics and details of its caseload see the CCRC website. In 2014–15, the House of Commons Justice Select Committee reported on the Criminal Cases Review Commission (HC 580). They recommended that the CCRC should be less cautious in its application of the “real possibility” test. The Law Commission should review the Court of Appeal’s powers. The CCRC should be given extra money to help reduce its backlog. It should have the power to compel evidence from private bodies, as the Scottish Commission does. It was performing its functions “reasonably well” but there was a striking disparity between what it and its critics thought it was doing. Stephen Heaton wrote a very valuable comment, “The CCRC—is it fit for purpose” (2015) 5 Archbold Review 6 (Westlaw). He countered strident critics who asserted that the CCRC had not referred enough cases, including some “obvious” miscarriages of justice. These contradicted the views of academics like himself who had had access to case files. He had examined over 400 files and conducted interviews with CCRC Commissioners and staff.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.