List of Conclusions and Recommendations:

77. Our conclusions and recommendations are as follows:

Overall approach

1. We note the good start which has been made by the Commission and its staff in respect of those cases which it has examined, particularly as regards the professionalism, independence and openness which it has brought to bear on its work (paragraph 19).

The test for referral

2. It is important that proper opportunities for referral are available in all cases, and accordingly that the statutory test for referral is as effective as possible in allowing justified cases to be referred. While we conclude that it would not yet be appropriate, with so few cases having been considered by the Court of Appeal, to seek to change the actual test for referral, we think it is worth noting, even at this early stage, that there may be problems with the statutory test laid down in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. We recommend that a formal review of the wording of the test in the Act take place after the Commission has been in operation for 5 years (paragraph 24).

Interpretation of the test and depth of investigation

3. Subject to monitoring of the outcomes of a larger number of decisions, we believe that there may be some force in the proposition that the Commission is interpreting the test too strictly. The statutory phrase "real possibility", however interpreted, clearly allows for a fair proportion of referrals not to lead to a quashing of the conviction (paragraph 30).

The problem of workload and delays

4. We are in no doubt however that the present situation in respect of delays is unacceptable. People who have been wrongly convicted will be serving out their sentence before their case has been dealt with. Furthermore, far from the situation being in hand or improving, it is deteriorating. It must now become a priority for both the Government and the Commission to bring the present state of affairs to an end (paragraph 36).

Prioritisation

5. While we recognise the thinking behind [the short form of review process], it must nevertheless divert some resources away from cases which might otherwise have a higher priority; the Commission must ensure that effort put into the 'short form of review' cases is not unduly at the expense of other, higher priority, cases (paragraph 39).

6. We accept and support the basic principle that priority is generally given to applications from those in custody (paragraph 40).

7. The fact that the cases of applicants at liberty face not being reached at all reinforces the [earlier] conclusion that the present situation is not acceptable. We suggest that the Commission should ring-fence a small proportion of its resources to ensure that at least some progress is made with significant 'at liberty' applications which have been waiting for a long time (paragraph 40).

Tackling the workload and the backlog

8. If a serious attempt is to be made to address the situation and to remove the backlog then hard decisions will have to be made. Either the Commission will have to reassess its approach to referral; or it will have greatly to increase its productivity and efficiency; or its resources must be increased; or some combination of these three approaches must be adopted (paragraph 41).

- A changed approach:

9. We accept that it would be wrong to speed up consideration of cases if it led to the Commission failing in its statutory duty. However, if the monitoring of outcomes of more cases shows that there is scope within the terms of the statute for cases to be processed at less depth, then, given the present backlog of cases, the Commission should adjust its approach accordingly (paragraph 45).

- Increased efficiency:

10. We are, confident that there is scope for further gains in efficiency to be made; and we consider it vital that such gains be made if the backlog of cases is to be reduced (paragraph 48).

- Resources:

11. We consider it important that performance targets allowing the work of the Commission to be more critically monitored are agreed with the Home Office as soon as possible. (Paragraph 50).

12. We conclude that the extra funding announced for the Commission for 1999-2000 and beyond is both necessary and welcome. We look to the Commission to ensure that the extra funding is fully reflected in increased output (paragraph 57).

13. We accept that there will be a need for further additional resources if the problem of delays is to be resolved. We emphasise however that resources alone are not the solution (paragraph 57).

14. We consider that the Commission has now been operating long enough for the difficulties in estimating its funding requirements to be in the past. We would, therefore, not expect there to be any further increases in the Commission's estimate of 60 as the number of caseworkers needed to keep up with the incoming work (paragraph 58).

'Guilty but insane' verdicts

15. We hope and expect that Government business managers will do what they can to give a fair passage to this uncontroversial measure [the Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Bill] (paragraph 59).

Who should conduct investigations?

16. In our view, the question of who should conduct the investigations needs to be continually monitored. We accept that it would be difficult in its present financial circumstances for the Commission to conduct lengthy investigations, whether using its own staff or by commissioning investigations from non-public bodies. We also accept that investigations conducted by police forces—certainly by forces other than the force being investigated—have so far proved satisfactory. Nevertheless if the whole process is to command confidence, the Commission must be ready to make full use of its powers to use non-police investigators (paragraph 64).

Conclusion

17. The reversal of some very long-standing miscarriages of justice has been a good start for this new organisation ..... There are, however, clearly still major problems. Although we have been favourably impressed with the way in which the Commission has dealt with the limited number of cases it has so far examined, we are concerned about the growing backlog (paragraphs 71 and 72).

18. We accept that some extra funding will be needed ..... There is further scope for efficiency savings as the Commission gains in experience ..... We believe it ought to be possible to process most cases with greater speed than is presently the case. The key is to identify at an early stage the most critical issues and then to examine those in detail without becoming bogged down or sidetracked by matters which are of less importance (paragraphs 73, 74 and 75).

19. If the Commission is able, through a combination of these measures, to reduce significantly the time which an applicant has to wait for a case to be reviewed, then the sooner it will achieve what it was set up to do (paragraph 76).