- This research project carried out by CCRC interns focuses on the Easy Read appeal form (Form NG) developed by the CCRC and sent to applicants where no exceptional circumstances are found, to determine whether it has assisted such applicants in making an appeal.
- The Centre for Women’s Justice (CWJ) is a legal charity working to hold the state to account and challenge discrimination in the justice system around male violence against women and girls
- A three-year project that included a statistical analysis of CCRC data from 1997-2017, a detailed review of 280 individual CCRC case files from 2012-2014 and group sessions with CCRC staff
- This research considers the CCRC’s operational practicies, rules and assumptions and how they influence its understanding of the real possibility test.
- Examines the situation of refugees prosecuted for irregular migration in contradiciton to refugees not being penalised for irregular entry or presence in a country.
- This internal CCRC research project began after ‘loss of time’ was raised as an issue during Lord Justice Fulford’s visit to the CCRC in early 2020
- Published in February 2023, this internal research report by CCRC intern Megan Morrison analyses Crown Court cases accepted for review by the CCRC on the basis that there were ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying the CCRC’s involvement despite there being no previous attempt to appeal.
The study reviewed 247 applications made to the CCRC between 2009 and 2020 by individuals convicted under joint enterprise law between 1978 and 2020. The research focussed on:
1) The type of joint enterprise that is the subject of applications to the CCRC.
2) How the corrected law in Jogee is being used in applications.
3) The number of applicants that had legal representation.
4) The demographic characteristics of applicants.
Dr Hewitt’s report: L-Hewitt-The-impact-of-R-v-Jogee-An-examination-of-applications-to-the-CCRC-.pdf
This book is the result of a study over several years by Professor Carolyn Hoyle from Oxford University Centre for Criminology.
Professor Hoyle and her team had access to CCRC casework files as well as to staff and Commissioners. Through in-depth analysis of case files and interviews the authors scrutinize the Commission’s operational practices, its working rules, and assumptions, considering how these influence its understanding of the real possibility test. The book was published in February 2019 by Oxford University Press.
Professor Carolyn Hoyle relied in part on her research at the CCRC for her chapter Compensating Injustice: The Perils of the Innocence Discourse in Young, S.M., Hunter, J., Roberts, P., and Dixon, D (eds), The Integrity of Criminal Process: From Theory into Practice, (Hart 2016). See details of The Integrity of Criminal Process: From Theory into Practice.
This independent research project, invited by the CCRC, examines the situation of refugees in England and Wales who are prosecuted to conviction for irregular migration in circumstances which are contrary to the mandatory requirement in international refugee law that refugees not be penalised for irregular entry or presence in a country.
Between 2005 and 2016, the CCRC referred close to 60 such cases for appeal; around one third were referrals to the Court of Appeal.
In 2016, The Court in R v YY and Nori  EWCA Crim 18 (‘Nori’) stated that refugees who had been convicted of offences of irregular migration but who had not appealed their convictions and were now out of time to do so need no longer apply to the CCRC.
Instead refugees in this position could go straight to the Court of Appeal. The Court also suggested that the CCRC ought to change its policy on exceptional circumstances as in the Court’s view, the CCRC appeared to be applying exceptional circumstances as ‘a matter of routine’. The CCRC changed its policy on exceptional circumstances after the Nori case.
The research question – Does the approach of the Court of Appeal after R v Nori protect refugees from criminalisation? – investigates whether refugees are appealing direct to the Court and the outcomes; and evaluates the impact of Nori on refugees and on the decision-making of the CCRC and the Court. The CCRC identified the research topic as one that is important to its functioning as a reviewer of miscarriages of justice. The paper, ISBN 978-1-5272-3266-2, was published by the CCRC in November 2018.
See the Commission’s response to the paper.
The CCRC Research Committee agreed in November 2016 to a No Appeal project by Warwick University looking at the high number of applications to the CCRC from individuals who have not appealed their convictions or sentences (no appeal cases) before applying. Published November 2018.
The brief study was focussed on establishing whether any parallels can be drawn between how the Court of Appeal (CoA) deals with cases that it hears upon referral from the commission (“referral cases”) and those appeals that it deals with in the normal way (“direct appeals”).
Examines the extent to which the criminal justice system creates a significant risk that innocent defendants will plead guilty and then fails to offer an adequate remedy.
This article was published in  Criminal Law Review 106.
Summary: Wrongful Convictions of Refugee and Asylum Seekers: Responses by the Criminal Cases Review Commission  Criminal Law Review 106. Mai Sato, C Hoyle and Naomi-Ellen Speechley,
The Criminal cases review commission reviews possible miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland when applicants have exhausted other avenues of appeal, with a view to referring unsafe convictions back to the appeal court. This article considers the CCRC’s handling of applications from refugees and asylum seekers who claim to have been wrongfully convicted of entering the UK illegally.
These cases commonly relate to people who could not obtain travel documents lawfully and were erroneously advised by defence lawyers that they should plead guilty. The article 1st examines the sources of these wrongful convictions by reviewing CCRC referrals to the appeal court. It then reviews the CCRC’s wider engagement with other criminal justice agencies in an effort to prevent further wrongful convictions of refugees and asylum seekers.
The failing of the criminal justice agencies to properly protect refugees and asylum seekers reflects a wider anxiety about the negative effects of immigration, and the societal appetite to use punitive measures to control immigration. The article concludes by arguing that the CCRC’s campaign was effective, and demonstrates the importance of interagency communication in preventing miscarriages of justice.
In The Criminalisation of Refugees, Yewa S Holiday explores the compatibility of the UK prosecution of refugees with Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention which prohibits the penalisation of refugees who have entered or are present illegally in a country. In a world of movement and displacement where refugees are often unable to access or use their own travel documents, they may be subject to criminal prosecution for unlawful entry or presence.
Yewa examines the failure of the legal system to fulfil the UK’s obligation under Article 31(1). Using legislative, judicial, historical, and governmental sources as well as case materials from the UK’s miscarriage of justice body, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, she argues that Article 31(1) constitutes a ‘fundamental’ principle of non-penalisation; and that the way to secure protection for refugees from prosecution for offences of unlawful entry and stay is by way of a plea in bar to trial rather than a defence.
This research explores, through the analysis of CCRC casework, the causes of wrongful convictions and looks at what factors statistically predict the Commission’s referral of a conviction for appeal and at what factors predict an appellate court quashing a conviction following Commission referral. Dr Schmidt aims to have published in 2017/18 an academic article based on his CCRC research. In the meantime, you can read a summary of Dr Schmidt’s research.
An extensive study exploring the basis of the Commission’s decisions to refer conviction cases and the Court of Appeal’s subsequent appeal decisions.
A comparative study of the mechanisms for correcting miscarriages in New Zealand and England after initial appeal rights are exhausted.
Discusses the possibility of a further role for the Commission in cases involving expert evidence.
Almost 50% of applications to the CCRC consist of ‘No Appeal’ (NA) cases. The Commission cannot refer a conviction to the Court of Appeal if there has been no appeal or leave to appeal has not been sought, unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the reference. Exceptional circumstances are not defined in the Act. The Commission’s own definition of exceptional circumstances, therefore, and its expectations of how these circumstances might be established, perform an important gatekeeping role in managing these applications.
Given that these cases represent such a large portion of CCRC applications, it is important that the CCRC is able to deal with these cases effectively within the resources available, whilst also ensuring that applicants are not screened out of the process prematurely. Our research aims to provide information on the nature of NA cases that come to the CCRC and why there are so many of them. Applicants are encouraged by the CCRC to pursue their appeal, and this evaluation will track whether Court of Appeal processes facilitate this and whether there are other barriers, such as a lack of legal representation.
Having developed a template reflecting the issues outlined in the research questions, we have already collected data on 250 NA cases. We are currently in the process of sampling some non-NA cases, for comparative purposes, before beginning analysis at the end of the summer.
(This information was provided by Warwick University 31 July 2017.)