Authored By: Afrah Jinnah
Middlesex University Dubai
Introduction
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is an important protection in the legal system, investigating cases in which people believe they have been wrongfully convicted or sentenced. It concentrates on cases in which every prior appeal has failed.1It is a non departmental public body, independent in respect of its decisions.2It was set up under the Criminal Appeal Act3on 1st January 1995.4 The CCRC has the power to send the case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration if it finds significant issues such as substantial new evidence or arguments that change the case’s viewpoint, but cannot reverse convictions or penalties. This ensures that potential miscarriages of justice are thoroughly reviewed.5 A blatant miscarriage of justice occurs when an error is made while interpreting the law, leading to an unjust decision.6 This essay critically examines the effectiveness of the CCRC by analysing cases it has handled, highlighting delays, procedural limitations, and systemic challenges that have hindered its ability to address miscarriages of justice effectively.
The CCRC’s Investigative Framework and Approach
The CCRC employs a structured process for investigating potential miscarriages of justice, prioritizing cases based on urgency and evidentiary factors. To manage its caseload, the Commission prioritizes applicants in prison with time left to serve, cases where evidence or witness testimony is at risk of deterioration, and cases involving special medical circumstances. Upon receiving an application, the Commission invokes its authority under the Criminal Appeal Act7to request relevant documents from public bodies, including the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The CCRC can also appoint Investigating Officers under the Criminal Appeal Act8, typically police officers, to carry out specific tasks under oversight. This ensures control over the investigation and maintains transparency.
Despite its structured approach, CCRC faces challenges, such as delays caused by the volume of applications and case complexity, which may impact its efficiency. In recent years, observers have noted that the CCRC is under resourced, with staff shortages and funding constraints making it harder for the body to function optimally. Hence these procedural practices reflect the CCRC’s effort to balance thoroughness with fairness while navigating systemic constraints.9
Performance Overview and Referral Statistics
The CCRC is a statute-created entity, and the test it must employ when considering whether to send a case back to the Court of Appeal consists of a series of legislative barriers outlined in the Criminal Appeal Act10 that constituted it.11 Since its establishment, CCRC has played a crucial role in reviewing potential miscarriages of justice, yet its effectiveness remains debatable. Between April 1997 and October 2024, the CCRC referred 854 cases to the appellate courts, of which 590 resulted in successful appeals, a success rate of approximately 70%. While this is a positive achievement, it leaves nearly 30% of cases unresolved, with 227 decisions upheld and 16 abandoned by applicants.
These figures prompt significant questions about the CCRC’s ability to deliver justice in all cases, particularly given the procedural and systemic barriers that may prevent some applicants from achieving favourable outcomes.12 Critics argue that the current test for referral—requiring a “real possibility” that the Court of Appeal would quash the conviction—places undue emphasis on judicial thinking, which the CCRC is not best placed to predict. This threshold has been described as restrictive, potentially discouraging the referral of cases that merit a fresh look but may not obviously meet the Court’s high bar for success. Therefore, this mixed track record underscores the need for a deeper examination of the Commission’s limitations and its role in dealing with miscarriage of justice.
Defining Miscarriages of Justice: Scope and Challenges
A miscarriage of justice encompasses both the wrongful conviction of an innocent person and the acquittal of a guilty individual or differentiating between an unintentional mistake and a deliberate “error.”.13 A key challenge in addressing a miscarriage of justice lies in defining what qualifies as a ‘miscarriage of justice.’ It can be instances such as improper prosecution, wrongful detention, flawed conviction procedures, or a combination of these.14
Moreover, a miscarriage of justice does not always occur within the courtroom; it can begin at the earliest stages of the criminal process. For instance, wrongful arrests, biased investigations, or the suppression of exculpatory evidence can plant the seeds for a later conviction. Throughout history, numerous cases have exposed the devastating consequences of miscarriages of justice.
The wrongful convictions in the Maxwell Confait case revealed critical flaws in police interrogation techniques, particularly with vulnerable suspects.15 Similarly, the Irish cases, including the case of Birmingham Six16 and Guildford Four, R v Conlon and Others17, highlighted systemic issues such as coerced confessions, fabrication of statement and biased investigations during periods of heightened political tension.1819 Similarly, the Carl Bridgewater20 case underscored the risks of relying on flawed evidence and inadequate legal representation, which ultimately led to innocent individuals being wrongfully imprisoned.21 Given the persistent occurrence of miscarriage of justice, the establishment of an independent body like the CCRC became essential to provide impartial review and rectify errors in the criminal justice system.
CCRC in Action: Key Case Studies
To illustrate the CCRC’s role in addressing miscarriages of justice, it is essential to examine how the Commission handles specific cases. The Commission’s ability to refer a case relies on the availability of genuinely new evidence or compelling arguments, making the use of its extensive investigatory powers, as outlined in the CAA22.23 Although the CCRC plays a crucial role in revisiting potential miscarriages of justice, its review processes have not always led to favourable outcomes. The case of R v Campbell24 involved a miscarriage of justice where the defendant was wrongfully convicted of attempted robbery despite his actions being deemed merely preparatory. The CCRC took on the case after new evidence surfaced, questioning the fairness of the initial trial. It meticulously reviewed the case, identified procedural flaws, and referred it back to the Court of Appeal under the CAA.25 Upon review, the Court of Appeal quashed Campbell’s conviction in September 2024, recognizing that his actions did not constitute an attempt under the law. This decision highlighted the importance of the CCRC in rectifying judicial errors and ensuring fair trials. Glyn Maddocks, who has worked on over hundred miscarriage of justice cases, described Oliver Campbell’s case as one of the clearest examples. He emphasized that the CCRC’s failure to meet with Campbell was a major oversight, as speaking to him for even ten minutes would reveal that he was physically incapable of committing the crime.26 In 1991, the CCRC rejected an application that included further psychological reports and a covert BBC recording of the co-accused stating that Campbell was not present at the scene.27 This case highlights the CCRC’s procedural shortcomings and missed opportunities in addressing miscarriages of justice effectively.
Similarly in the case of R v Malkinson28 involved a miscarriage of justice in which Malkinson was wrongfully convicted of rape and attempting to strangle in. His conviction rested largely on eyewitness identification, despite the absence of DNA evidence linking him to the crime. After two unsuccessful appeals, new forensic techniques commissioned by the CCRC identified another man’s DNA on evidence from the scene. Additionally, undisclosed police photographs contradicted evidence about the complainant’s injuries, and prior convictions of key witnesses had been withheld. The CCRC referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, which quashed Malkinson’s conviction in 2023.29 Despite having access to the DNA evidence that later exonerated Malkinson as early as 2009, the CCRC failed to act decisively. This delay, coupled with criticisms of a lack of urgency and structural inefficiencies, highlights systemic failures within the commission. Observers, including Lord Garnier, have called for a reset of the CCRC, describing its performance in such cases as a “jaw-dropping” miscarriage of justice.30
Likewise, the case of R v Hallam31 involved the wrongful conviction of Hallam for murder, conspiracy to committing grievous bodily harm, and violent disorder. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on two eyewitnesses whose testimonies were later found to be unreliable. Following a referral by the CCRC, based on fresh evidence and investigative failings, the Court of Appeal quashed Hallam’s conviction.32 This case illustrates the challenges faced by the CCRC in addressing miscarriages of justice. While the Commission referred Hallam’s case to the Court of Appeal based on fresh evidence and investigative failings, its reliance on the Court’s discretion highlights its inherent limitations. This dependence on judicial interpretation weakens the CCRC’s ability to function as an independent safeguard against wrongful convictions, as demonstrated by the protracted delay in Hallam’s exoneration.33 The four examples discussed above demonstrate the CCRC’s limitations in resolving miscarriages of justice. While the Commission’s investigative powers and abilities to discover new evidence have helped to reverse convictions, its efficacy is compromised by delays, procedural oversights, and institutional inefficiencies. Criticisms, such as failure to act on available evidence or communicate directly with relevant individuals, highlight systemic weaknesses that hinder the agency’s ability to function as an independent safeguard. These examples highlight the need for reform so that the CCRC can address erroneous convictions more forcefully and quickly.
Calls for Reform and Future Prospects
Critics have consistently called for structural and legislative reforms to improve the CCRC’s ability to function as an effective safeguard against miscarriages of justice. These reforms focus on both internal operational issues and external legislative constraints.
One of the most prominent suggestions is the need to lower the “real possibility” test currently required for a referral to the Court of Appeal. As it stands, the CCRC can only refer a case if it believes there is a “real possibility” that the conviction will be quashed. However, this test places an undue emphasis on predicting how the appellate court will respond, which can result in the Commission acting conservatively. By lowering this threshold or adopting a more investigative standard—such as whether there are serious doubts about the safety of the conviction—the CCRC would have greater freedom to send problematic cases forward without second-guessing judicial outcomes. Some legal academics have argued that this change would better reflect the CCRC’s original purpose: to act independently of the judiciary and champion fairness, rather than merely mirror the expectations of the courts.
Another urgent concern is the need for increased funding. The CCRC has faced considerable criticism for delays in processing applications, with some applicants waiting years for a decision. These delays are often caused by understaffing and an overwhelming caseload. More resources would allow the CCRC to hire additional case review managers, commission more forensic testing, and reduce backlogs, especially in complex or long-standing cases involving fresh evidence. Adequate funding is also essential for the Commission to make full use of its investigatory powers under the Criminal Appeal Act and respond promptly when new scientific methods, such as DNA reanalysis, emerge.
Calls for greater transparency in the Commission’s decision-making process have also gained traction. In cases where the CCRC declines to refer, applicants often receive generic or opaque explanations that fail to fully clarify the reasons for rejection. This lack of transparency can erode public confidence and leave applicants confused and discouraged. Introducing a requirement for detailed reasoning—accessible to both legally trained and lay audiences— would improve accountability and offer insight into how decisions are reached. It may also expose inconsistencies or bias in how different types of cases are treated.
Furthermore, there is growing advocacy for amending the Criminal Appeal Act34 to give the CCRC more autonomy and powers to challenge the Court of Appeal’s restrictive approach.
Conclusion
The CCRC plays a pivotal role in addressing miscarriages of justice, but its effectiveness remains hindered by systemic challenges. The Commission’s investigative powers have successfully led to overturned convictions, as seen in cases like R v Campbell35 and R v Hallam36. However, its reliance on judicial interpretation, delays in action, and procedural inefficiencies have limited its ability to safeguard against wrongful convictions. Criticisms of its failure to act decisively or engage directly with key individuals, like the case of R v Campbell37, underscore these flaws. Despite successes, such as the exoneration of Malkinson38, its limitations reveal a need for reform. Ultimately, the CCRC’s efforts to rectify miscarriages of justice highlight both its importance and its challenges, prompting a critical assessment of its ability to ensure fairness in the legal system.
Bibliography
PRIMARY SOURCES
Table of Cases
R v Campbell [1991] 93 Cr App R 350 (CA)
R v Conlon [1989] The Times, 20 October; [1989] Lexis Citation 1462
R v Hallam [2012] EWCA Crim 1158
R v Hickey and others [1997] Lexis Citation 2913
R v Malkinson (Andrew) [2023] EWCA Crim 954
R v McIlkenny; R v Hill; R v Power; R v Walker; R v Hunter; R v Callaghan [1992] 2 All ER 417
Table of Legislation
Criminal Appeal Act 1995
SECONDARY SOURCES
Books
Kelly D, The English Legal System [ 20th ed, Kelly and David 2024]
Articles
Baxter JD & Koffman L, ‘The Confait Inheritance – Forgotten Lessons’ (1983) 14 Cambrian L Rev
Choudhary T, ‘Miscarriage of Justice: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies’ (2021) 2 Jus Corpus LJ
‘Compensating the Innocent: Insult to Injury? Pt 2’ (2023) 173 NLJ 8044
Gheorghe TV, ‘A Brief Exposition on Miscarriage of Justice’ (2023) 2023 Rev Universul Juridic
Kyle D, ‘Correcting Miscarriages of Justice: The Role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission’ (2004) 52 Drake L Rev
MacKeith J, ‘The Work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission’ (1999) 67 Medico-Legal J
Miller J, ‘Justice for Oliver Campbell after 33 years’ (2024) 174 NLJ 4(2) ‘Real hope for the Birmingham Six’ (1991) 141 NLJ 263
Robins J, ‘Rough (in)justice’ (2021) 171 NLJ
Watts S, ‘Miscarriages of Justice: Is the Courtroom Still Fit for Purpose?’ (2024) 14 Southampton Student L Rev
Weeden J, ‘The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) of England, Wales and Northern Ireland’ (2012) 58 Crim LQ
Other Secondary Sources
Criminal Cases Review Commission, ‘Home’ (CCRC) <https://ccrc.gov.uk/> accessed 7 December 2024
Criminal Cases Review Commission, ‘Our Powers and Practices’ (CCRC) <https://ccrc.gov.uk/our-powers-practices/> accessed 7 December 2024
Criminal Cases Review Commission, ‘Facts and Figures’ (CCRC) <Facts and figures – Criminal Cases Review Commission> accessed 7 December 2024
1 Criminal Cases Review Commission, ‘Home’ (CCRC) <https://ccrc.gov.uk/> accessed 7 December 2024.
2James MacKeith, ‘The Work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission’ (1999) 67 Medico-Legal J 47, 48. 3 Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (CCA 1995).
4 David Kelly, Slapper and Kelly’s The English Legal System (20th ed, Routledge 2024) 344.
5 Criminal Cases Review Commission, ‘Our Powers and Practices’ (CCRC) <https://ccrc.gov.uk/our powers-practices/> accessed 7 December 2024.
6 Trilok Choudhary, ‘Miscarriage of Justice: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies’ (2021) 2 Jus Corpus LJ 470, 471.
7 CAA 1995, s 17.
8ibid s 19.
9 MacKeith (n 2) 50.
10 CAA 1995.
11 John Weeden, ‘The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) of England, Wales and Northern Ireland’ (2012) 58 Crim LQ 191,196.
12 Criminal Cases Review Commission, ‘Facts and Figures’ (CCRC) <Facts and figures – Criminal Cases Review Commission> accessed 7 December 2024.
13 Teodor-Viorel Gheorghe, ‘A Brief Exposition on Miscarriage of Justice’ (2023) 2023 Rev Universul Juridic 28.
14 Choudhary (n 5) 477.
15 John D. Baxter & Laurence Koffman, ‘The Confait Inheritance – Forgotten Lessons’ (1983) 14 Cambrian L Rev 11.
16 R v McIlkenny; R v Hill; R v Power; R v Walker; R v Hunter; R v Callaghan [1992] 2 All ER 417. 17 R v Conlon [1989] The Times, 20 October; [1989] Lexis Citation 1462.
18 ibid.
19‘Real hope for the Birmingham Six’ (1991) 141 NLJ 263.
20 R v Hickey and others [1997] Lexis Citation 2913.
21 David Kyle, ‘Correcting Miscarriages of Justice: The Role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission’ (2004) 52 Drake L Rev 657, 659.
22 CAA 1995.
23 Weeden (n 7) 201.
24 R v Campbell [1991] 93 Cr App R 350 (CA).
25 CAA1981, s 9(2).
26 Dr Jon Robins, ‘Rough (in)justice’ (2021) 171 NLJ 22.
27 Jan Miller, ‘Justice for Oliver Campbell after 33 years’ (2024) 174 NLJ 4(2).
28 R v Malkinson (Andrew) [2023] EWCA Crim 954.
29 ibid.
30 ‘Compensating the Innocent: Insult to Injury? Pt 2’ (2023) 173 NLJ 8044, 6.
31 R v Hallam [2012] EWCA Crim 1158.
32 ibid.
33 Samantha Watts, ‘Miscarriages of Justice: Is the Courtroom Still Fit for Purpose?’ (2024) 14 Southampton Student L Rev 111, 115.
34 CAA 1995.
35 R (n 20).
36 R (n 27).
37 R (n 20).
38 R (n 24).
