Reaching a verdict: miscarriages of justice
For lawyers there are few more emotive matters than a miscarriage of justice. Small wonder then that the angst around the failures of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is much more than existential. Defence lawyers and campaigners for reform of the CCRC describe an organisation that is hamstrung by a body of legislation that increasingly assumes the guilt of any defendant; whose staff are inconsistent; and whose closeness to the Court of Appeal leads the CCRC to bring only predictable cases before it.
At a symposium on the reform of the CCRC, held at the end of March at the offices of Norton Rose in London, even the former CCRC commissioner David Jessel confessed he was discomfited by the organisation’s performance. Not surprisingly Susan Caddick, the sister of alleged miscarriage of justice victim Eddie Gilfoyle (pictured, with his sister), went much further. ‘The CCRC should be a national treasure,’ she told the audience. ‘But it is not, and we should all be ashamed of that.’ Her presentation was listened to in rapt silence and acknowledged at the end with loud applause.
Safeguards fail at every level
As is now well known, when Caddick’s brother was convicted of his wife’s murder, Merseyside police had concealed from the court evidence that pointed to suicide. Errors by the police had also led to crucial evidence at the scene being ignored and destroyed. But it was what followed over the succeeding 20-year period that has been a Kafka-esque experience for Gilfoyle and his family.
Lancashire police, called in to look at the case as an independent force, found no evidence of a crime. But when Gilfoyle’s case was sent to the Court of Appeal in 1995 on the basis of Lancashire’s report, the appeal judge ruled that none of the Lancashire force’s evidence could be heard because disciplinary matters at Merseyside were ongoing, meaning that Lancashire police’s report was not completed. Key disciplinary matters were then resolved a day later.
In 2000, when the CCRC sent the case back again, the judge ruled that the Lancashire investigation was not new evidence, as it had been used in Gilfoyle’s first appeal. So, again, it was not used in evidence. Gilfoyle’s case will now go to the Court of Appeal again, following the chance discovery by Gilfoyle’s solicitor of previously undisclosed evidence, including letters written by his wife that supported the theory that her death was suicide. While some plead points in mitigation for the CCRC’s performance and that of the Court of Appeal, no one asserts that either institution comes out of its dealings with the Gilfoyle case looking good.
It was not meant to be that way of course. As John Cooper QC recalls: ‘At the time the CCRC was set up [in 1997], the campaigning group Justice was so optimistic about its foundation that it stopped its work on miscarriages of justice.’ No longer would miscarriage cases be at the mercy of the home secretary.
To see how it should have turned out, one could look at the work, and standing, of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPPC). The IPPC may have its failings, but its remit includes the requirement to investigate - and as Caddick puts it, ‘the CCRC don’t investigate miscarriages of justice’, they review the evidence. Where others have presented new evidence for review, she adds, ‘it’s all done for them’.
Context is everything
While there are aspects of the CCRC’s conduct and remit that lay it open to specific, if telling, criticisms, as Cooper points out, it operates in a context that acts against a miscarriage being overturned. The drift of public policy, Cooper argues, is heavily weighted against defendants’ rights, because it has been designed to make it easier to secure convictions. ‘Legislation is conviction-oriented,’ he notes, ‘whether by design or chance’ the majority of legislation aims to ‘encourage a conviction.’
The last defence-oriented piece of legislation, Cooper notes, was the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act: ‘That is the arena the CCRC has to refer to.’ An impecunious criminal justice system is also a factor, he adds, resulting in an attitude designed to ‘keep trials on track’ - an attitude that removes some crucial safeguards that could ensure a fair first trial. This attitude to justice’s safeguards, QualitySolicitors Jordans partner Mark Newby claims, extends beyond trials to the review process itself. In common with other practitioners concerned with the operations of the CCRC, Newby believes that CCRC caseworkers reviewing cases vary hugely in their professionalism, are inconsistent and miss crucial points. ‘Some case reviewers are very good,’ he notes, ‘and some are very bad’.
Newby cites one case where the CCRC refused to refer a case to the Court of Appeal because it claimed key forensics evidence had been dealt with at trial, where it had not. In another, he says, the CCRC would not look at the significance of DNA on a victim’s clothing that did not match that of a convicted person. In general, he believes, the CCRC’s caseworkers are too willing to speculate on the reasons for inconsistencies in the evidence surrounding the case.
Newby recalls a further case where a CCRC caseworker speculated that the accused’s distinctive head bump could have disappeared on the day of the crime. This, it was insisted, would discount evidence that he had been wrongly identified.
According to this analysis, CCRC caseworkers are not just deciding to ‘second-guess’ aspects of the cases they are reviewing out of laziness, despite Newby’s ‘serious concerns about consistency’. Rather caseworkers are responding to the ways that their roles are circumscribed. As Caddick and Cooper note, the CCRC does not investigate. It is reluctant to use new expert evidence in the process of reviewing cases. And requests to examine a case on forensics terms can be dismissed as ‘speculative’. Additionally, as Newby points out: ‘We have to expand the powers of the CCRC to obtain private documents.’
A question of priorities
Cooper, who recently represented the family of Dr Crippen in their attempt to have his conviction for murder overturned, also suggests that ‘there should be no sell-by date for cases’. His plea, he insists, is no posthumous piece of theatre on behalf of Crippen. Instead, it is a recognition that for someone convicted, but no longer in custody, the continued existence of their conviction may be unfair, where evidence exists that could quash that conviction.
‘The priority ranking system should be reviewed,’ Cooper says. Considering cases where the convicted person is in custody, before those where the convicted person is at liberty because they have served their time, he notes, is unsatisfactory. It is a point Caddick sees all too clearly - for although her brother now has his liberty, ‘the damage done’ by his conviction is not just ‘irreparable’, but continues to hurt both Gilfoyle and his family.
Public policy may be overwhelmingly conviction-oriented - driven by the need to secure a conviction for the sake of ‘victims of crime’. But listening to Caddick speak, on behalf of her brother and family, it is striking how similarly she presents to the testimony of eloquent victims of crime. It is, perhaps, that clear resemblance in these parallel experiences that makes it difficult to believe that ‘business as usual’ at the CCRC can continue.
Eduardo Reyes is Gazette features editor
- Interview: Chris Grayling
- My Legal Life: Shami Chakrabarti
- Roundtable: immigration
- Russia’s legal sector
- My Legal Life: Monique Fauchon
- Interview: Elisabeth Jones
- E-learning and CPD
- My Legal Life: Sarah Webb
- Law firms and cloud computing
- My Legal Life: Mark Hynes
- Interview: Rupert Scrase
- Roundtable: Wales and devolution
- My Legal Life: Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC
- Interview: Freshfields’ Paul Bowden
- Career breaks: return journey
- My Legal Life: Mark Beer
- Army law: uniform instructions
- Nigeria: risks and growth
- My Legal Life: Ted Greeno
- Jackson reforms: trials and tribulation
- Risk and Compliance conference
- Legal education: bespoke courses
- My Legal Life: John Spencer
- Roundtable: diversity in the law
- My Legal Life: Gerald Shamash
- UK law firms are making headway in the tough South Korean market
- My Legal Life: Christopher Arnull
- Regulated will-writing
- Profile: David Haigh
- My Legal Life: Suzanne Gill