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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll