.png)
2 hours ago
4
In the next few months, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) will make one of the highest-profile decisions in its 29-year history: whether to send the conviction of Lucy Letby for the murder of seven babies, and attempted murder of seven others, back to the court of appeal. Given the level of interest in this case, the volume of medical expert criticism of the prosecution’s case, and the forthcoming report from a public inquiry, the CCRC’s role in weighing new evidence from Letby’s lawyers is arguably the biggest challenge that it has faced.
A year ago, when the application was made, it did not look as though the organisation was up to it. Its reputation was badly damaged by failings in the cases of Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in prison for a rape that he did not commit, and Peter Sullivan, who was wrongly imprisoned for 38 years for murder. Both men had made previous applications to the CCRC before the ones that led to their convictions being overturned (another man, Paul Quinn, was convicted last month of the rape for which Mr Malkinson was wrongly found guilty).
A review by Chris Henley KC of the CCRC’s handling of Mr Malkinson’s case criticised the way that inquiries had been allowed to “drift”. The justice select committee said that the organisation appeared unable to learn from mistakes. In the first six months of last year, both its chair and chief executive left.
Vera Baird was appointed chair on an interim basis to get things back on track. A report from the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, published earlier this month, made 34 recommendations as to how this should be done. It highlighted a lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities, unacceptable delays, and a need for better training. But it expressed confidence in the all‑important case work. In the 60 cases it examined, all decisions taken were “ultimately sound”. This finding is reflected in results: while the proportion of CCRC referrals that have resulted in convictions being overturned has fluctuated, the figure for the current year is 77.8%.
The CCRC is, in Dame Vera’s words, a “place of last resort”. Set up following a 1990s royal commission that examined a series of appalling miscarriages of justice, it functions as a backstop to the criminal justice system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – and an institutional acknowledgment of its fallibility (Scotland has a separate body with a similar remit). Applications to the CCRC can only be made after other appeals have been turned down. In some cases, including Mr Malkinson’s and Mr Sullivan’s, these rely on forensic evidence that was not available at the original trials.
The latest figures show that applications to the CCRC have reached a record high level. It received 1,841 in 2025-26, almost 20% up on the previous year. It is hard to say whether this means that more people are being wrongly convicted. But it is essential to guard against complacency. While confidence in the justice system is, in general, a public good, it is vital to recognise that judges, juries, police and lawyers are all capable of mistakes.
It should, therefore, be a relief to everyone who cares about justice that the inspectors’ conclusion was that the CCRC is not a “failing organisation”. Dame Vera says that all 34 of their recommendations will be taken up. An application to the CCRC may be a last resort, but it is a crucial component of a justice system that is capable of honest self-reflection.
