Abstract
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) claims to adopt certain core values to govern its operations and, most importantly, its case reviews of alleged miscarriages of justice. These values appear variously in its Annual Reports and on its website and are expressed by the words ‘independent’, ‘thorough’, ‘investigative’, ‘impartial’, ‘accountable’ and ‘transparent’. One might argue that stating noble values could leave any organization or individual open to contradiction when particular instances are examined. However, it is not the intention of this discussion to use these statements in a cynical or ironic way. On the contrary, the use of the CCRC’s own key terms to structure the following discussion is intended to illustrate how a particular case, that of Michael Attwooll and John Roden, who waited ten years from the first application to the CCRC in 1997 until referral to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (CACD) in May 2007, can bring into focus some of the fundamental difficulties and systematic limitations that the CCRC faces in enacting and living up to its stated values. This is not to deny that such values may be genuinely desired or pursued but, rather, to acknowledge the internal and external barriers to their achievement and the consequential impact that this has on the ability of the CCRC to overturn the alleged wrongful convictions of potentially innocent people.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call