Scotched Justice
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Scotched Justice

“Individuals can resist injustice, but only a community can do justice”
 
HomePortalSearchLatest imagesRegisterLog inScottish Newspapers

 

 Justice must be seen to be done

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Karen
Guest




Justice must be seen to be done Empty
PostSubject: Justice must be seen to be done   Justice must be seen to be done EmptyWed Nov 26, 2008 12:54 pm

Should a senior figure from the prosecution community really head the Criminal Cases Review Commission?

The appointment of Richard Foster as the new chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has greatly disturbed those involved in overturning wrongful convictions.

It is an age-old adage that justice not only has to be done; it has to be seen to be done for the public to have faith in its functioning. In the same way, it is felt that the body that was set up to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice needs to be seen to be independent from the formal agencies of the criminal justice system that is alleged to have caused them, especially since there has been a public crisis of confidence that potentially meritorious cases were not being referred back to the court of appeal under the old system.

Born out of notorious cases such as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, the CCRC has always prided itself on its independence and it has striven to assure the public that it is committed to the plight of the wrongly convicted.

It has sought faith in its operations and Foster's immediate predecessors have indeed been independent from the system: Sir Frederick Crawford was a distinguished scientist with no legal background and Professor Graham Zellick was an academic lawyer and university administrator. This independence has been enhanced by the appointment of commissioners such as Dr James McKeith, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, and David Jessel, an investigative journalist, who both helped to quash numerous miscarriages of justice before their appointments with the CCRC.

It is not, then, that Foster is not suitably qualified for such a post. His previous role as the chief executive of the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as his wealth of other senior positions, shows that he has the necessary managerial experiences to deliver his remit at the helm of an organisation such as the CCRC.

But the appointment of a senior figure from the prosecution community appears to be counter-intuitive for a body that the public believes was established to overturn the wrongful convictions of innocent people. It introduces a possible conflict of interest and sits uneasily with those trying to challenge the failings of the criminal justice process and overturn wrongful convictions. It could also contribute to a lack of faith in the independence of an organisation that is already under fire for the shortage of referrals to the court of appeal.

But does it really matter who is the head of the CCRC? The Innocence Network UK, the umbrella organisation for more than 20 projects in UK universities, was established because the CCRC could not guarantee to refer the cases of innocent victims of wrongful conviction and imprisonment back to the appeal courts whoever is its head.

Students working with criminal lawyers provide pro bono assistance to prisoners maintaining their innocence, with a view to making an application to the CCRC (or the Scottish CCRC) in the hope that their cases are referred back to the court of appeal.

At the same time, the Prison Service and the Parole Board are at a loss to know what to do with the sheer number of prisoners claiming miscarriages of justice. They refuse to undertake offending behaviour courses, a necessary prerequisite for progression and release, and have created a bottleneck in the system of prisoners who may never be released.

Yet, as the website of the CCRC states, it does "not consider innocence or guilt, but whether there is new evidence or argument that may cast doubt on the safety of an original decision". Under these strictly legal terms, it refers only those cases believed to have "a real possibility" of being overturned. It does not act in accordance with what the public thinks it was set up to do and may not be able to refer the cases of applicants that it finds to be innocent if the evidence of their innocence was available at the time of their original trial.

This means that concerns about the head of the CCRC are, largely, irrelevant, as it will continue to be bounded by the straitjacket of its statutory remit whoever is at the top.

Instead, it would be more meaningful for the innocent that are languishing in prison if we turn our attention to trying to reform the court of appeal. We need an Innocence Act so that it can receive compelling evidence of innocence, even if it was available at trial but not used and/or the jury have already heard it decided against it. Only then can the CCRC operate as we want it to.
Back to top Go down
 
Justice must be seen to be done
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Justice for Megrahi
» Justice for Megrahi
» Welcome to Scotched Justice
» Welcome to Miscarriage Of Justice .Org
» What is Miscarriage of justice?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Scotched Justice :: News Articles-
Jump to: