‘Section 15’ relates to the Court of Appeal’s power to direct the CCRC to carry out investigatory work on its behalf during criminal appeals. This case study provides an overview of the kinds of investigation we carry out under section 15.
The CCRC and section 15
Most of our work relates to reviewing criminal cases which have already been considered and turned down by the appeal courts to determine whether any of those cases should be sent back to the court for reconsideration.
However under section 15 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the same legislation that created the CCRC, the Court of Appeal is provided with the power to direct us to investigate an issue, or set of issues, on the Court’s behalf.
This means that we can be asked to carry out investigations on cases during their first-time appeals at the Court of Appeal or during applications for leave to appeal.
Whilst the Court of Appeal can identify issues it wants us to investigate, we have discretion to progress our investigations in the manner we deem most appropriate. We can also investigate any related matters which we consider the Court ought, if possible, to resolve.
Since 2009, the Court Martial Appeal Court has also been able to direct us to carry out investigations on its behalf.
Because the Court of Appeal requires an answer from the CCRC before it can re-convene to consider an appeal, we deal with Section 15 requests as quickly as possible.
Reviewing medical evidence: Marie Whiston
The Court of Appeal might ask the CCRC to examine and provide conclusions on expert evidence presented at trial or appeal.
For example, Marie Whiston was a nurse convicted in 1997 of murdering her common law husband, Eric Lloyd. At trial, the prosecution alleged that she administered a lethal dose of insulin to Mr Lloyd. Ms Whiston maintained that Mr Lloyd’s death was natural and that any medicine given was part of legitimate care.
At her appeal, Ms Whiston argued that the medical evidence which the prosecution had relied upon at trial was unreliable and unfair.
The Court of Appeal directed the CCRC to investigate the technical aspects of the medical tests and to report on whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution’s case. This required the CCRC to source and take advice from a wide variety of experts, including those who gave evidence for the prosecution and defence teams.
Our review also involved locating and re-examining biological samples, effectively re-investigating the circumstances surrounding the victim’s death. In this case, our investigation concluded that the testing and results used at the trial were both reliable and thorough, and the appeal was later dismissed.
Gathering new information: Sion Jenkins
Other section 15 directions might require the CCRC to obtain new information or evidence on witnesses, defendants, complainants or other individuals connected to criminal proceedings.
Sion Jenkins was convicted in 1998 of murdering his 14-year-old foster daughter, Billie-Jo Jenkins, whom he claimed to have found in a pool of blood after returning from a shopping trip. The case garnered substantial media attention.
In 2003, the CCRC referred Mr Jenkins’ conviction to the Court of Appeal because of new evidence that strengthened the case that another individual, who had previously been a suspect and was known to frequent the area where the offence took place, had a window of opportunity to commit the offence.
At the subsequent appeal, the CCRC was directed by the Court to investigate any “unusual behaviour” exhibited by this alternative suspect after his arrest and detention.
The report that resulted from our investigation made observations about this individual’s aggressive behaviour and found that he had received psychiatric treatment for paranoid delusion and mood swings.
The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, but Mr Jenkins went through two further trials that both resulted in hung juries. He was formally acquitted in February 2006.
Investigating Police Misconduct: R v Joof and Others
Sometimes, section 15 investigations are extensive and require a large amount of resource. The case of R v Joof and Others [2012] was particularly complex.
In 2008, five men were tried and convicted at Leicester Crown Court of the murder of Kevin Nunes who had been shot dead on 19 September 2002 in Pattingham, Staffordshire. All five received life imprisonment with minimum terms ranging from 25 to 28 years.
At trial, the prosecution’s case had largely depended on witness testimony, especially that of a key witness to the shooting, Simeon Taylor. All the defendants, as well as Mr Taylor, were involved in West Midland gangs and drug dealing.
After the conviction, concerns surfaced over how the prosecution and/or police had handled the disclosure of evidence, and serious complaints were made about how Staffordshire Police’s Sensitive Policing Unit (SPU) had handled Mr Taylor. Having allegedly made post-trial retractions, Mr Taylor’s credibility as a witness of truth was also questioned.
All five defendants appealed against conviction. At the appeal in July 2009, the Court of Appeal directed the CCRC to investigate issues of witness credibility, disclosure and police misconduct.
During this review, we used our powers under section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 – which gives us the power to appoint investigating officers to carry out inquiries on our behalf – to oversee the appointment of an investigation team. This team was headed by the Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary who was assisted by up to 30 officers from Derbyshire and Leicestershire Police.
This wide-ranging investigation uncovered multiple internal Staffordshire Police reports from 2003 to 2007 that identified major failings in how the SPU operated and raised serious doubts about the unit’s integrity.
The reports documented complaints of corruption, record falsification and misconduct. Amongst other issues, our review found that:
- There had been poor morale and improper relationships within the SPU and Mr Taylor had been handled by officers who were under investigation for disciplinary issues
- Mr Taylor had been paid thousands of pounds by police whilst under witness protection and had been allowed to commit further offences which had not been disclosed to the prosecution, defence or Court
- Mr Taylor had been handled in ways which clearly breached Home Office witness management guidelines
- The SPU had a “toxic culture” in which officers were failing to record, share and review sensitive material properly, meaning evidence that could have undermined the prosecution case was buried
- Even when senior officers were warned about problems in the SPU, nobody ensured this information reached prosecutors
In March 2012, the Court of Appeal found that because of the material brought to light by the CCRC’s investigation, it was “plain that the non-disclosure was so extensive and so serious that these convictions cannot be regarded as safe”.
The Court found that had the existence and contents of the internal reports been known, they would have provided material relevant to the credibility of the principal prosecution witness and the integrity of the officers who managed him.
The Court quashed the convictions, and the Crown Prosecution Service did not oppose the appeal or seek a retrial. The Court also observed that:
The case prompted a major review of Staffordshire Police and contributed to national discussions about disclosure failures in the criminal justice system. It is a prime example of how systemic police disclosure problems can make convictions unsafe.
These are just a few examples of the kind of work the CCRC can be asked to carry out under section 15. We are able to carry out these investigations as an independent body provided with unique powers to obtain any document or record held by any public body in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. These powers enable us in our core mission to find, investigate and refer to the appeal courts potential miscarriages of justice.
If you believe you have been wrongly convicted or sentenced in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, and have lost your appeal, you can apply to the CCRC for a free review of your case.