header-logo header-logo

Overhaul of CCRC part of wide-ranging changes suggested for appeals

27 February 2025
Issue: 8106 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
The Law Commission has proposed sweeping reforms to the criminal appeals process, including changing the ‘real possibility’ test used by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

Its consultation on criminal appeals, published this week, addresses concerns that the test blocks some miscarriages of justice from being corrected and is too deferential to the appeal court.

Professor Penney Lewis, Commissioner for Criminal Law, said: ‘We received persuasive evidence that the “real possibility” test used by the CCRC may lead the CCRC to focus its investigations too narrowly and so neglect lines of inquiry that might exonerate a person.

‘Rather than focusing on what the appeal court may do, we think the CCRC should first form its own view as to whether a conviction may be unsafe.’

Where the wrongly convicted seek compensation, they must prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt, which Professor Lewis warned ‘can present an insurmountable obstacle’. The Law Commission suggests a civil standard of proof be used instead.

It also proposes establishing an independent inspectorate for the CCRC. It would also increase the courts’ and CCRC’s powers to investigate claims a conviction is unsafe due to misconduct by jurors, remove the ‘case stated’ procedure in summary proceedings, and abolish the requirement for Court of Appeal certification so more appeals reach the Supreme Court.

Professor Lewis said: ‘As the Post Office scandal has demonstrated, anyone can be a victim of a miscarriage of justice.’

The Law Commission also seeks views on the time limits for lodging an appeal, and the composition and terms of appointment of CCRC Commissioners. It asks whether the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme should be expanded to cover offences such as causing death by careless driving and animal cruelty, and whether to expand the range of situations where an acquitted person can be retried due to compelling new evidence.

It asks for views on whether it should be lawful to disclose evidence for the purposes of responsible journalism to reveal a possible miscarriage of justice. Finally, it proposes establishing a National Forensic Archive Service for the long-term storage of evidence used in trials. The consultation ends on 30 May.

Issue: 8106 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll