CCRC Inspection: A ‘Real Possibility’ of Improvement?
(Posted on 11/08/26)
Share:
The HMCPSI Inspection confirms that the CCRC could still perform a vital safeguarding role, but it also shows that the CCRC is falling flat: it is too often slow, overly process-driven, and insufficiently focused on the legal and evidential issues that matter most in wrongful-conviction cases.
The Inspection should be read as both a warning and an opportunity. A post-conviction review body cannot command confidence if applicants with credible claims are left waiting while cases drift, key expertise is inconsistent, and quality assurance measures check paperwork more reliably than they test judgment. The HMCPSI Inspection has made 34 recommendations, 6 of which are classified as priority. The recommendations matter because they go to the heart of whether the CCRC can become more focused, more accountable and more capable of identifying cases where liberty, fairness and public confidence are at stake.
“Inside Justice is an independent charity that reviews cases of potential miscarriages of justice. Inside Justice rigorously reviews applicants' cases with the assistance of an advisory panel of legal and scientific experts and where appropriate makes applications to the CCRC. Inside Justice has a number of applications which have been under review for a significant period of time, for which often forensic expertise is required. Unfortunately, Inside Justice have observed a reluctance to engage with outside expertise. There is a new forensic advisor position within the CCRC, however, one expert is not sufficient to cover the breadth of scientific issues that need to be considered. Real people are being impacted.” (Dr Ann Priston, Trustee and Advisory Panel Member)
Key themes from the inspection include:
- The need for proportionality over exhaustive investigations.
A recurring theme is the conflict between the CCRC's ‘leave no stone unturned’ ethos and the need for a risk-based and proportionate approach. While the commitment to thoroughness is a strength, inspectors found it to be a ‘double-edged sword’ that often results in a lack of focus, the pursuit of irrelevant lines of enquiry, and unnecessary delays. The report stresses that the CCRC must move toward identifying cases with the greatest risk and fast-tracking clear no-referral decisions to free up resources for more complex investigations. - The need to shift from process-driven to substantive quality assurance
The inspection highlights a significant gap in how the CCRC assures the quality of its work. The CCRC appears to be disproportionately focused on process compliance, such as completing tasks, rather than assessing the substantive quality of casework. Current quality assurance primarily focuses on timeliness and process compliance rather than on the substantive quality of legal reasoning or investigative strategy. Inspectors noted that while procedural checks are effective at identifying missed tasks, they do not assess whether a review was strategically well planned or whether the conclusions reached were robust.
The Inspection therefore offers a real possibility of improvement, but only if reform goes beyond administrative tidying and leads to a culture that puts timely, expert, applicant-focused justice at the centre of CCRC casework.
The findings and recommendations do not come as a surprise to Inside Justice, nor would we suggest to anyone else who interacts with the CCRC. The Inspection mirrors the lived experience – the application process is too long, there is poor communication about case progress, and there is a lack of relevant expertise to address the grounds for review in the cases.
Of note, while the Inspection mentions the need for training and for conducting a skills audit, it does not provide an initial outline of which types of expertise were generally lacking beyond legal expertise. Further, the report does not specifically address the new role of the forensic advisor in assisting case review managers with their decision-making, as was reflected on for legal. In addition, the cases reviewed did not consider the long-term complex cases. Inside Justice will be waiting to see how the CCRC responds.
