We approached the review of the Criminal Cases Review Commission's (CCRC) Provisional Statement of Reasons (PSoR) regarding an appeal against a murder conviction with unwavering determination. Our mandate was not merely to scrutinise, but to challenge and expose the deep-rooted failings of a body that, in our view, has become irredeemably unfit for its intended purpose.

From the outset, it was evident that the trial suffered from grave procedural and evidentiary deficiencies—concerns that were systematically ignored or minimised. The interests at play, notably those of the police and influential figures such as David Bright MBE, loomed large, creating an environment where the pursuit of truth was secondary to the preservation of reputation and institutional self-interest. This was further compounded by palpable bias within the CCRC itself, which manifested against the appellant and their family, casting a shadow over every facet of the review process.

The Provisional Statement of Reasons, ostensibly designed to clarify the Commission's rationale regarding grounds for appeal, has become a tool for frustration and confusion instead. Although the appellant technically retains a right of reply, the reality is that the CCRC sets the bar for overturning their decision so high as to make meaningful challenge all but impossible.

This is not mere bureaucratic inertia. The CCRC routinely delivers decisions that are not only impenetrable but also devoid of logic and coherence—obscuring rather than illuminating the path to justice. The effect on appellants and their advocates is debilitating. Many are left demoralised, drained by the emotional, financial, and psychological costs involved. The system is so labyrinthine and dispiriting that many abandon their fight entirely, smothered by the very institution designed to deliver hope. Tragically, the public perception of the CCRC as a bulwark against injustice is woefully misplaced; hope may drive the pursuit of justice, but the reality is a landscape littered with indifference and obstruction.

The CCRC’s gross inadequacies are not isolated incidents—they are symptomatic of a wider malaise. In the case under review, the Commission issued a 126-page PSoR, ultimately declining to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal. This decision, made despite glaring unresolved issues, underscores a culture of avoidance and minimisation. The process is not about seeking the truth or correcting miscarriages of justice, but about protecting entrenched interests and maintaining institutional credibility at all costs.

Recent high-profile resignations speak volumes about the gravity of these failures. Karen Kneller’s departure as Chief Executive on July 2, 2025, and the earlier resignation of Helen Pitcher as Chair, are inextricably linked to the Commission’s inability to prevent egregious miscarriages of justice, such as that suffered by Andrew Malkinson. Kneller’s position was rendered untenable by the damning House of Commons Justice Committee report in May 2025, which laid bare the institution’s failings. Pitcher’s claim of scapegoating further points to a culture of denial and deflection rather than accountability.

It is a cruel irony that the CCRC, an organisation established to champion justice for the wrongly convicted, now stands accused of perpetuating the very injustices it was meant to redress. The hope invested in its processes is not only misplaced but actively exploited, as the Commission’s obtuse decisions and unwillingness to confront uncomfortable truths drive appellants towards despair.

The appointment of Dame Vera Baird as the new Chair offers, perhaps, a faint glimmer of reform, but history suggests that structural rot cannot be cured by leadership changes alone. The fundamental architecture of the CCRC is so riddled with flaws that only its dissolution and replacement with a genuinely independent and accountable body can restore public confidence in the justice system.

Our investigation leaves no doubt: the Criminal Cases Review Commission is not fit for purpose. Its dissolution is not merely desirable—it is essential. Until a new framework is established, one that is transparent, impartial, and genuinely committed to rectifying miscarriages of justice, those wrongfully convicted will continue to be failed by a system designed more for its own perpetuation than for the pursuit of truth.

The time for half-measures and superficial reforms is over. Only decisive action—the complete dissolution and replacement of the CCRC—can begin to repair the damage and deliver on the promise of justice for all.