{"id":235638,"date":"2024-07-21T13:57:39","date_gmt":"2024-07-21T13:57:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=235638"},"modified":"2024-07-21T13:57:39","modified_gmt":"2024-07-21T13:57:39","slug":"the-observer-view-criminal-cases-review-commission-needs-reform-and-a-new-leader-observer-editori","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/the-observer-view-criminal-cases-review-commission-needs-reform-and-a-new-leader-observer-editori\/","title":{"rendered":"The Observer view: Criminal Cases Review Commission needs reform and a new leader | Observer editori…"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n

O<\/span>ur criminal justice system is rightly loaded in favour of letting those who are probably guilty walk free to avoid locking up the innocent for crimes they did not commit. Juries are directed to convict a defendant only if they are sure of their guilt. But terrible miscarriages of justice can and do happen.<\/p>\n

There are supposed to be safeguards in the system to help expose these. Yet a new independent review of the Criminal Cases Review Commission\u2019s handling of the case of Andrew Malkinson \u2013 who was imprisoned for 17 years for a violent rape he did not commit \u2013 shows just how threadbare that safety net<\/a> really is.<\/p>\n

Malkinson was convicted of rape in 2004. His conviction was fundamentally unsafe<\/a> on many counts: Greater Manchester police failed to disclose important evidence that undermined the case against him, including photographic evidence that supported the victim\u2019s memory that she caused a \u201cdeep scratch\u201d to her attacker\u2019s cheek (Malkinson had no marks on his face when he was seen by the police the next day) and the fact that a key witness who identified him was a heroin addict with multiple criminal convictions who only came forward the night he was arrested for another crime. Greater Manchester police also destroyed key pieces of clothing from the victim while a preservation order was still in place, which could have jeopardised the DNA testing that later proved Malkinson\u2019s innocence. There were further failings<\/a> three years after his conviction when DNA evidence from another man was found on the victim\u2019s clothing as part of a forensic review of several cases; both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service were notified but failed to act.<\/p>\n

The Criminal Cases Review Commission<\/a> is the independent body that acts as a gatekeeper in determining whether potentially unsafe convictions should be referred to the court of appeal for review. Malkinson applied to the commission twice in 2009 and\u00a02018 on the basis of this extra evidence to have his case reviewed.<\/p>\n