Calling criminal defence lawyers: Inside Justice needs more appeal specialists
(Posted on 27/11/25)
Share:
By Jessica Ritchie - Trustee and Advisory Panel Member
Inside Justice is an award-winning charity which conducts casework investigations on behalf of people who claim they have been wrongly convicted. Key to the success of the charity is expert volunteer case workers and advisory board members. We need more advisory board members to help us navigate complex legal processes and provide crucial legal advice. You would be joining our phenomenal Advisory Panel of dedicated and determined, multi-disciplinary experts, who include barristers, forensic scientists, ex-senior police officers, and former High Court judges.
The advisory board meets up to monthly (hybrid delivery). Additional commitment is based entirely on what you can commit.
For additional information, please contact: info@insidejustice.co.uk
Since the first use of DNA evidence for a criminal investigation in Leicester in 1985, numerous committees, inquiries, and reviews have examined its role in the justice system. There are fundamental flaws in how forensics are managed for criminal investigations and how post-conviction appeals and processes currently exist in the UK.
The Forensic Science Service (FSS) was closed in 2012 due to its operating losses. As a consequence, UK forensic services have been decentralised to local and regional police force laboratories and private providers. This has occurred during a time of police funding cuts.
Forensic provisions have largely been left in the hands of commercial providers, creating a near-monopoly and a single point of failure in England and Wales. There is now an excessive reliance on in-house police laboratories, which undermines scientific impartiality. The consequences include potential for unreliable or inadmissible evidence and limited ability for the defence to scrutinise forensic results.
Legal aid cuts mean defence teams cannot afford independent forensic experts. These austerity-driven reductions have had long-term impacts on the criminal justice system. Self-represented defendants often require more court time, struggle to understand or challenge forensic evidence, and are more likely to receive longer sentences.
This is further compounded by trust issues with police-provided. Evidence is frequently poorly stored, scattered across agencies with inconsistent oversight. As McCartney suggests, a national, independent storage solution is urgently needed. Post-Nunn, police discretion over disclosure has become a lottery; reforms are required to expand disclosure obligations.
Without adequate funding and defence investigations, access to justice for accused persons is severely hampered. Furthermore, enhanced scientific literacy is necessary within the legal profession and closer collaboration between law and science. Although the Forensic Science Regulator now has statutory powers, there remains a pressing need for increased scientific capacity, targeted research funding, and legal reform.
Most recently, the All-Party Parliamentary (APPG) on Miscarriages of Justice conducted a three-year inquiry, “Forensic Science in England and Wales: Pulling out of the Graveyard Spiral” <https://futurejustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/FS_Digital.pdf> and identified deep-rooted structural issues in the criminal justice system, such as poor police investigations, unsolved crimes, and wrongful convictions.
Proposed solutions include:
· Establishing a National Forensic Institute as an independent authority to set strategy, support forensic disciplines, and fund research
· Ensuring forensic services are not operated or overseen by police forces
· Increasing legal aid funding, especially for independent forensic experts
· Appointing scientifically trained staff to the CCRC
· Creating a national evidence storage facility with consistent oversight
Further, the Law Commission’s Criminal Appeals Consultation Paper <https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/criminal-appeals/> has comprehensively identified and consolidated several critical issues. These include:
· Restrictive time limits on criminal appeals
· The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)’s ‘real possibility’ test
· Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD) restrictive approach to fresh evidence
· Problems with post-trial retention and disclosure
· Compensation for the wrongfully convicted
Post-conviction appeals are extremely challenging, even with the assistance of legal representation. Many applicants turn to the CCRC, but the CCRC’s reliance on the ‘real possibility’ test, which involves predicting how the Court of Appeal (CACD) might act, has been widely criticised. The test sets an inappropriately high threshold, diverting focus from the fundamental question of whether a conviction is safe. Furthermore, applicants to the CCRC are rarely represented by a lawyer, and as noted in the Henley Report, the CCRC should not function merely as a last-resort safety net. The referral rate remains low, and the process lacks transparency, as highlighted by the Andrew Malkinson case.
Furthermore, fresh evidence restrictions apply to appeals, which are often forensic in nature and are rarely available within the 28-day appeal window. The CACD maintains a restrictive approach to such evidence, even in cases suggesting factual innocence.
The inability to access independent forensic analysis deepens existing systemic inequalities. Legal reforms are slow, and in the meantime, organisations like Inside Justice play a vital role in bridging the gap. Based in England and Wales—and now expanding into Scotland—Inside Justice investigates potential miscarriages of justice with support from an expert Advisory Panel that includes forensic scientists, lawyers, former police officers, and investigators, all offering pro bono assistance.
