Birmingham Six<\/a>, the Guildford Three, the Cardiff Three and Stefan Kiszko. Its task was to examine the cases of people who were potentially wrongly convicted and send them to the court of appeal for review.<\/p>\nThe Westminster Commission, co-chaired by the conservative peer Lord Garnier QC and cross-bencher Lady Stern, heard that the body received just \u00a35.93m in 2019 compared with \u00a39.24m in 2004. Its report, which was published on Friday, revealed that the average workload for case review managers climbed from 12.5 in 2010 to 27 in 2017. The CCRC\u2019s chair told the Westminster Commission that the Birmingham-based group ideally needed 45 case review managers but had 31.<\/p>\n
As well as calling for more funding, the Westminster Commission said the CCRC \u201cneeds to demonstrate its independence from government\u201d. Speaking to the Guardian, Garnier said: \u201cAt the start the CCRC took on its new role with great enthusiasm but over 25 years it\u2019s suffered from funding problems. It\u2019s not an organisation that\u2019s high in the political stratosphere, it doesn\u2019t command attention from ministers and budget-setters.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe need to re-instil that sense of independence in the CCRC and its leadership, which the originating legislation envisaged,\u2019 added Garnier, a former solicitor general. \u201cIt has become something of a Cinderella public body, [metaphorically] stuck right at the end of some dark corridor within the Ministry of Justice. It needs to be out there punching above its weight.\u201d<\/p>\n
Garnier pointed out that the CCRC was \u201coperating in a completely different way\u201d from that envisaged when it was set up almost 25 years ago. The report shines a light on what a 2020 court judgment called a \u201cdysfunctional relationship\u201d with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).<\/p>\n
The CCRC is obliged by statute to have 11 commissioners and until 2012 those commissioners were on salaries with holiday, sick pay and a pension; however, in 2017 commissioners were recruited on minimum one-day-a-week contracts with none of the benefits. The Westminster Commission heard that the overall level of commissioner resource fell from 8.8 full-time equivalent posts in 2014 to two and a half by 2019. These changes were implemented following a review by the MoJ and, according to the inquiry, were strongly opposed within the CCRC.<\/p>\n
The inquiry refers to CCRC board minutes that recorded commissioners being told by a senior civil servant that if the ministry\u2019s recommendations were not introduced their appointments \u201cmight be terminated or not renewed\u201d. The foreword of the subsequent MoJ review noted that the minister would be taking a keen interest in the timely implementation.<\/p>\n
A submission by the human rights group Justice said this \u201csuggests an unlawful interference by government with the independence of the CCRC\u201d.<\/p>\n
Three former commissioners told the Westminster Commission about their concerns. \u201cI cannot see how one day a week commissioners could ever fulfil the duties for which they were appointed \u2026 they would find it almost impossible to be anything other than \u2018rubber-stamping\u2019 decisions,\u201d said one. It takes the agreement of three commissioners to send a case back to the appeal judges.<\/p>\n
David James Smith, a commissioner who left the organisation in 2018, said: \u201cNo one should be under any illusion about the CCRC\u2019s importance. It is the backstop when things go wrong in criminal trials, the place of last resort when all else has failed.\u201d<\/p>\n
But he added: \u201cThere was a strong sense among commissioners during my time there that the MoJ was trying to change the commission by stealth.\u201d<\/p>\n
Glyn Maddocks QC, special adviser to the APPG on miscarriages of justice, shares the concern that reforms were foisted upon the CCRC. \u201cThat change appears to have taken place via the backdoor, without scrutiny and having been imposed by the MoJ against the CCRC commissioners\u2019 wishes whose very role was to guard the organisation\u2019s independence. That\u2019s alarming.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe risk of wrongful conviction is at least as great today as it was in the bad of days of the 1970s and 1980s, perhaps more so. Our criminal justice system is under unprecedented stress as a result of sustained underinvestment and a court backlog exacerbated by Covid-19. More than ever we need a watchdog fit for a purpose. Let\u2019s make sure we get one.\u201d<\/p>\n
A CCRC spokesperson said there was a strong culture of independence in the organisation. \u201c[There] has never been any interference from government in CCRC casework, and the CCRC would not tolerate it if there were.\u201d <\/p>\n
An MoJ spokesperson said: \u201cMiscarriages of justice can have a devastating impact and we are committed to providing the commission with the resources it needs to continue its vital work. The Criminal Cases Review Commission always has and continues to work independently and to suggest otherwise is completely untrue.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Source link <\/a>
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/litigation-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a>
\n