Issue 103 (April 2015)

SAFARI, c/o 170 Poplar Road South, London, SW19 3JY
(Letters are forwarded to us from here)
Issue 103
eMail: safari.editor@icloud.com
(April 2015)
Website: http://safari-uk.org
☆
STOP PRESS: SAFARI Special Report with this newsletter
NOW’S THE TIME TO GET INVOLVED. This is our last
newsletter before the 7th May 2015 General
Election. Polls suggest that the resulting new
Government will be another coalition although
which parties will agree to work together is
unclear. Even parties with small numbers of
seats may well have a part in the new
Government in order to achieve the necessary
majority. No matter who wins, this is your
chance to help mould that new Government into
something that supports the falsely accused. In
the coming weeks, candidates will be sending
out leaflets, knocking on doors, making phone
calls, and generally doing all they can to get
your support for them at the Election. Leaflets
should include their address. Find out who your
local candidates are for all parties who are likely
to win at least one seat anywhere in the UK.
Then write to all of them (no matter who you
personally support) along the following lines but
feel free to personalise your own letter:
“Dear <name>. I see that you are standing in
the upcoming General Election. My family
and I are looking to back a candidate who will
specifically support changes in the law
designed to protect the victims of
miscarriages of justice. Would you be willing
to lend your support by backing such
changes? Many people are falsely accused
and wrongfully convicted mainly because an
accusation – especially if it’s of a sexual
nature – is often enough to convince a jury to
convict. Victims only have a right to apply for
leave to appeal, there is no right to have an
appeal, and this is often refused as they can’t
provide ‘new evidence’ that wasn’t available
at trial. It’s extremely difficult to find evidence
to prove that you didn’t commit an offence.
For example, could you, personally, prove
you didn’t indecently assault someone one
evening between Tuesday 24th April 2012
and Thursday 3rd May 2012; if the only
‘evidence’ against you was the word of the
person making the allegation? Even those
who are arrested and possibly charged, and
then go on to win their trial (or just have
charges dropped) can have their lives ruined
by newspaper articles that appear about
them. It’s vital to convict the guilty but it
should be equally vital (if not more so) to
ensure that innocent people are not convicted
along with the guilty. I hope I can rely on your
support and look forward to your reply.”
If you receive replies, SAFARI would be very
grateful if you could forward copies to us either
online via safari.editor@icloud.com or via
SAFARI, c/o: 170 Poplar Road South, Merton
Park, London, SW19 3JY.
WINNING AN APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION almost
always requires there to be “new evidence”
which was not available at the time of trial. New
evidence however, can often be extremely
difficult to find, especially if your conviction was
based almost entirely on false allegations made
by others. This can be particularly hard in the
case of ‘historic’ allegations. Proving where you
were (and, more importantly, where you
weren’t!) can seem very hard. It’s even harder
where the charge is made to cover a period of
two or more years, or unofficially altered by, for
example, a judge or prosecutor commenting
that the accuser “may have been confused
about dates or places” saying that “it might
have been the following year instead.”
Although many old employment records have
long since been lost, making alibi evidence hard
to come by, your own medical records will show
which practice you attended, and where you
lived / worked at various times in your life. If, for
example, you were alleged to have committed
an offence while working in a care home in
Cornwall, but your medical records show that
you were resident in Yorkshire and having
outpatient visits to a Yorkshire hospital during
the relevant time, that could take the place of
employment records in proving that you were
not employed at a place where the complainant
was resident at the time of the alleged offences.
There may well be other avenues of enquiry
that could be followed up. The tax office
(HMRC) is likely to have details of your
previous employment history. If you were
unemployed, this will also be on their records
(with dates).
You may have old paperwork for your car (or
previous cars) showing, for example, where
your car was MOT tested or sent in for repairs.
You may have old utility or council tax bills, or
bank statements that showed your address at
that time. You may have purchase paperwork
for a house you bought, or copies of old
tenancy agreements. Even letters written by
members of your family in the past might show
where you were living, or make reference to
where you were working at the time. If you have
a computer, you may have copies of letters on
there that you posted out to others, with the
date and your address (or theirs, if an
employer, for example). Old credit card
statements may show that you bought
something in Manchester while you were
allegedly committing an offence in Kent.
Receipts for household goods may show where
you were living, and will show where and when
they were bought. Think what may be available,
and where it might be found.
☆
NICOLE RICHESS (20) HAS BEEN CONVICTED of
perverting the course of justice after admitting
she falsely accused two soldiers of attempting
to rape her, just before her trial was to begin.
Ms Richess – who was 18 at the time - had
gone on a bar crawl with some servicemen and
invited them back to her house, where she later
had sex with two of them. She was too
ashamed to tell her boyfriend she had cheated
on him, so she lied and said they had forced
themselves on her. Her boyfriend then made
her go to the police. We see stories like this
often. People make up an allegation to hide the
fact they had cheated on a partner but are then
pressurized by their partner to make an official
complaint. As a result, the case spirals out of
control. We feel sure that Ms Richess would not
have initially intended to cause any harm to the
people she falsely accused, but must now take
responsibility for her actions.
SEAN FRAYNE (48) HAS BEEN CLEARED of raping a
woman at a pub. His lawyer criticised the
decision to prosecute Frayne instead of
launching a blackmail inquiry after it emerged
that a friend of the alleged victim wrote to him
suggesting that publicity could be avoided for a
substantial out-of-court payment. The Crown
said the woman, who we cannot legally name,
knew nothing of her friend’s attempts to
“achieve some form of informal justice” on her
behalf by sending the letter. In his closing
speech, prosecutor Martin Hurst submitted that
the jury should “disregard” the letter if they
concluded that the woman did not know it had
been sent. But defence barrister Laura Pitman
questioned why the letter and a second note
sent to Frayne had not been the focus of a
police blackmail inquiry. In her closing
submission, Miss Pitman said: “They (the
police) have investigated one side of the story
and they have not investigated the other. “If this
is nothing to do with money why is there even
mention of an out-of-court payment?”
KATE SAINT (58) HAS HAD HER CONVICTION for
common assault overturned at appeal. Ms Saint
was accused of driving her car at Ms Gilligan,
who claimed she was knocked backwards on to
the bonnet of the car. However, Ms Saint said
that at one point Ms Gilligan opened the
passenger side door, got into her car and
screamed abuse in her face before getting out
again. As the door shut and Ms Saint moved
forward, Ms Gilligan tried to run in front of the
car and her hand touched the bonnet, to which
she told Ms Saint: “Ha, I have got you.” The
judge said he was appalled that this had even
gone to magistrates and that there were more
serious cases to be heard.
(We strive to ensure the accuracy of all articles, but accept no responsibility for errors) All our earlier newsletters are available (and printable) online at http://safari-­‐uk.org LAURA TILT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD will be
conducting doctorate research later this year
into the post-release experience of the
wrongfully convicted as part of the university’s
Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in Criminology and
Criminal Justice. Academia has so far identified
the causes of wrongful conviction, and the
effects suffered by its victims upon release from
prison. Adrian Grounds, for example, found in
his 2005 study that the psychological
experience could be equivalent to post
traumatic stress disorder suffered by war
veterans. However, little research has
considered how the exonerated cope with these
effects, and the strategies adopted to try to
overcome them, particularly in jurisdictions
outside the United States. The project, to be
produced in conjunction with the Miscarriages
of Justice Organisation (MoJO), will use
interviews and documentary analysis to
investigate how those who have had
convictions overturned and been released from
prison cope with their experience, bounce back
from criminal stigma and re-build their social
identity. This will include investigation of the
support that is provided to help cope. Whilst the
research is directed at the experience after a
conviction is overturned, information from the
families and accused who maintain innocence
but have not yet had their convictions quashed
are welcome, to give a holistic perspective to
the project. The project will seek answers to a
number of questions: how are victims of
wrongful conviction supported or assisted upon
their release from prison in the United
Kingdom? What kind of additional support or
assistance do people feel should be provided to
allow them to rebuild a life and reputation that
has been spoiled by processes and people in
the criminal justice system beyond their
control?
Does
receiving
government
compensation or claiming civil law damages
actually help in reducing stigma and coping with
their situation? Do apologies from those
involved in the criminal process, or others, help
to repair the harms? Does the individual seek
assistance themselves, and how do they feel
they are coping with their post-release
experience? Interviews with those who have
suffered miscarriages of justice will be
complemented with similar interviews with
family and friends, lawyers, investigative
journalists and other media representatives,
Innocence projects and similar organisations,
and government bodies responsible for
providing compensation or involved in civil law
suits for wrongful conviction. Victims of wrongful
conviction have suffered enough; it is
imperative that they are afforded substantial,
accessible, effective support to enable them to
reform their social identity, rebuild social bonds,
engage in useful employment, and ultimately
resume a normal life. The only way to propel
these issues into the public agenda is through
the voices of those at its heart. Your help is
therefore essential to the success of this project
and its contribution to policy reform. If you are
willing to participate – as one who has suffered
wrongful conviction yourself or through family or
friends, Laura invites you to contact her before
the end of September 2015, via post at Laura
Tilt, Wolfson College, Linton Road, Oxford, OX2
6UD or email to laura.tilt@wolfson.ox.ac.uk.
There is no obligation to be locked into an
official interview; any input is welcome.
IN OUR LAST NEWSLETTER, we said that Victor
Nealon was to take the Justice Secretary, Chris
Grayling, to court over changes in the law
stopping them from receiving compensation for
wrongful conviction and imprisonment. The
court of appeal has now reversed a previous
decision to refuse a Judicial Review and the
review should now take place later this year.
This case is basically about a simple question:
should someone whose conviction is quashed
qualify for compensation even if they can’t
prove their innocence? We say ‘yes’ because in
the cases of false accusations, the victim is
usually convicted based solely on someone’s
say-so rather than real proof, and it’s generally
impossible to prove that you didn’t commit a
crime. So if you win an appeal, it means you
shouldn’t have been convicted in the first place,
so compensation should be paid. We wish
Mr Nealon well in his judicial review.
DID YOU HAVE AN INCOMPETENT DEFENCE team at
trial? When appealing, remember to
concentrate your arguments on how that
incompetence resulted in unsafe convictions
and not on the incompetence itself. In R v Mark
Darren Day [2003] EWCA Crim 1060 (Case No2001/5795/Z2) it was said: “While incompetent
representation is always to be deplored; is an
understandable source of justified complaint by
litigants and their families; and may expose the
lawyers concerned to professional sanctions; it
cannot in itself form a ground of appeal or a
reason why a conviction should be found
unsafe. We accept that, following the decision
of this court in Thakrar 2001, the test is indeed
the single test of safety, and that the court no
longer has to concern itself with intermediate
questions such as whether the advocacy has
been flagrantly incompetent. But in order to
establish lack of safety in an incompetence
case Adams has to go beyond the
incompetence and show that the incompetence
led to identifiable errors or irregularities in the
trial, which themselves rendered the process
unfair or unsafe.”
ALEXANDER MCGUFFIE (38) has had his
conviction for being involved in a conspiracy to
import cocaine quashed at appeal because the
prosecution failed to disclose information clearly
relevant to his case. The contents of the
observation log concerning him was in
question, and it was the defence’s case that it
was unreliable. There were a number of
anomalies as regards the observation evidence
in the case: the alterations to the log were
extensive; the evidence of the officers was
inconsistent; and notable detail, relied on by the
officers in evidence, was lacking in the original
section of the log. Importantly, these same
officers (DC Breen and DC Parry) had been
involved in observations in a different case, on
the Isle of Wight (“Green and others”), in which
the accuracy of the log and the reliability and
trustworthiness of these officers had been
brought into question for much the same
issues. In the Isle of Wight case, it had been
alleged that the members of the squad had lied
and created false entries, and the existence of
the complaints against them should have been
disclosed to the defence. The Appeal Court
stated: “Evidence which tends to indicate that
police officers have fabricated observations in
an overlapping case is not evidence simply
going to credibility if a sustainable line of
defence for an accused is that the same officers
(or some of them) fabricated evidence of a
similar nature to that relied on in the current
proceedings. As set out above, under section
100 Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence of the
bad character of a person other than the
defendant is admissible, with the leave of the
court if, and only if, it has substantial probative
value in relation to a matter which is in issue in
the proceedings and is of substantial
importance in the context of the case as a
whole. The fact that a complaint had been
made in Green and others was, of itself, of little
value, but it should have acted as a trigger to
alert the officers that there was material that
was relevant in the present trial as bad
character evidence as to whether the officers
(or some of them) had provided unreliable
observation evidence.” This, therefore, is yet
another case in which information which clearly
could have undermined the prosecution’s case
and aided the defence was withheld from the
defence at trial. If that information had been
made available to the defence, and presented
to the jury, their verdict may very well have
been different. (R v Alexander McGuffie &
Adrian Weekes [2015] EWCA Crim 307 - Case:
C0/201200173 C1 AND CO/201200221 C1)
IF YOU’RE THE VICTIM of a miscarriage of justice,
you’re not alone. Despite being innocent, you’re
still told you are ‘in denial’, that you should
‘admit your guilt’, or ‘address your offending
behaviour’. No matter what you do, reports will
state you ‘did not make productive use’ of your
time if your innocence meant that you weren’t
eligible for a course they ‘required’ you to do.
You feel helpless and lost. There are hundreds
in the same situation, and by working together
(by sharing little successes with support groups
like SAFARI so we can spread that information
around) you will find the process much easier to
get through. Furthermore, many readers have
told us that articles in our newsletter have been
of immense help in their appeals. Stay strong.
We’re with you.
THE NEXT SAFARI NEWSLETTER is due online on
1st June 2015. Postal copies are expected to
arrive by 15th June 2015. The deadline for
arrival of submissions for consideration is
6th May 2015. It will be the first newsletter after
the 2015 General Election and we should know
better what kind of Government has been put
into place. New Governments bring new
policies and we hope to work with all of you,
other support groups, the Criminal Cases
Review Commission and Members of
Parliament to get legislation put into place
finally to give victims of miscarriages of justice
the chance to get their lives back into order and
overturn wrongful convictions, and to make it
harder for the innocent to be convicted from
false accusations.
SAFARI IS SOLELY RELIANT on regular donations
to survive, and every little helps, so if you’ve not
already set up a Standing Order with your bank
to send us £1 (or more) per month, we would
be very grateful if you could do so. Simply ask
your bank (by letter or in person) to credit
whatever you can afford to account “SAFARI”,
account number: 02702360, sort code:
30-92-02 or, if you prefer, just ask us to send
you a Standing Order form to complete and
return to us. Thank you.
MAJOR CHANGES RECOMMENDED TO ASSIST VICTIMS OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS
Since SAFARI was founded over a decade ago, our goals have always been (a) to achieve changes in legislation which protect people
properly from being wrongly convicted as a result of false accusations, and (b) to ensure that those whose lives have already been
damaged by this can win appeals against their convictions and obtain adequate compensation for the damage done to them. It helps
nobody if the innocent are wrongly convicted and imprisoned; it does nothing to protect victims; it costs vast amounts of time and money;
and it brings the entire criminal justice system into disrepute. Part (b) of this goal took a major step forward in March 2015 when the
Conclusions and Recommendations of the House of Commons Justice Committee Report were published. In short, the Justice
committee have recommended major changes that are likely to make successful appeals significantly more achievable. You can view
the entire report at http://tinyurl.com/safari27. Here are the basic recommendations:
Conclusions and Recommendations
of the House of Commons Justice Committee Report
on the Criminal Cases Review Commission
(Twelfth Report of Session 2014–15)
The ‘real possibility’ test
1. There was a strong difference of views amongst our witnesses on changing the ‘real possibility’ test [which requires that for a referral to be made
there must be a real possibility that the conviction or sentence would not be upheld on appeal]. Any change would have to be undertaken in light of a
change to the Court of Appeal’s grounds for allowing appeals, and would have to take account of the need to avoid a waste of resources or a
detrimental effect on applicants and victims alike. While an alternative test might allow the CCRC more scope to display its independence of the
Court of Appeal, by definition the only additional referrals which a change to the test alone would allow would be those with less than a real
possibility of success.
2. We have seen no conclusive evidence that the CCRC is failing to apply the ‘real possibility’ test correctly in the majority of cases. We accept that
application of the test is a difficult task and is by no means a precise science, but where potential miscarriages of justice are concerned we consider
that the CCRC should be willing to err on the side of making a referral. The Commission should definitely never fear disagreeing with, or being
rebuked by, the Court of Appeal. If a bolder approach leads to 5 more failed appeals but one additional miscarriage being corrected, then that is of
clear benefit.
3. We recommend that the CCRC be less cautious in its approach to the ‘real possibility’ test, and reduce the targeted success rate in its
Key Performance Indicators accordingly.
4. We are concerned that there may be some miscarriages of justice which are going uncorrected because of the difficulty the CCRC faces in getting
some such cases past the threshold of ‘real possibility’, as a result of the Court of Appeal’s approach. While it is important that the jury system is not
undermined, properly-directed juries which have seen all of the evidence may occasionally make incorrect decisions. The Court’s jurisprudence in
this area, including on ‘lurking doubt’, is difficult to interpret and it is concerning that there is no clear or formal mechanism to consider quashing
convictions arising from decisions which have a strong appearance of being incorrect. Any change in this area would require a change to the Court
of Appeal’s approach, which would itself require a statutory amendment to the Court’s grounds for allowing appeals. We are aware that this would
constitute a significant change to the system of criminal appeals in this country and that it would qualify to a limited extent the longstanding
constitutional doctrine of the primacy of the jury. Neither of these things should be allowed to stand in the way of ensuring that innocent people are
not falsely imprisoned.
5. We recommend that the Law Commission review the Court of Appeal’s grounds for allowing appeals. This review should include
consideration of the benefits and dangers of a statutory change to allow and encourage the Court of Appeal to quash a conviction where
it has a serious doubt about the verdict, even without fresh evidence or fresh legal argument. If any such change is made, it should be
accompanied by a review of its effects on the CCRC and of the continuing appropriateness of the ‘real possibility’ test.
6. We do not think that the CCRC should change its approach to the Royal Prerogative [of Mercy]. Greater use of the power under section 16 of the
1995 Act [Criminal Appeal Act 1995] would bring the executive back into the process in precisely the manner that the creation of the CCRC was
intended to avoid. In our view, increased use of the Royal Prerogative would be a wholly inadequate and inappropriate answer to the problems that
have been raised, given that it does not lead to the quashing of the conviction or the correction of the miscarriage of justice but only commutes the
sentence, and so does not provide complete justice for a falsely convicted person.
(We strive to ensure the accuracy of all articles, but accept no responsibility for errors) All our earlier newsletters are available (and printable) online at http://safari-­‐uk.org Resources, investigatory powers, and practices
7. If the CCRC is to function effectively it must be funded properly. We accept that the Ministry has had to find savings across the board and that it
could not have predicted the sharp rise in the CCRC’s workload. However it is now clear that the CCRC is struggling to cope with these additional
applications at its post-austerity resource levels and, with the increased workload, is unable to deliver an improved service for less. The current level
of delays is unacceptable and must be brought down, and this will inevitably require further funding. As so many of the CCRC’s other issues are also
blamed on funding, an increase should also make identifying areas for further improvement an easier task.
8. We recommend that the CCRC should, as a matter of urgency, be granted the additional £1 million of annual funding that it has requested
until it has reduced its backlog. Furthermore, the Ministry should engage with the CCRC in longer term budgetary planning so that the
Commission can properly plan ahead and recruit efficiently, with a view to restoring it to a level of funding which enables it to eliminate
lengthy delays in handling cases.
9. We acknowledge the serious consequences of every miscarriage of justice for the person convicted, no matter how minor the offence. Despite this,
we also think that the effect of overturning a miscarriage in more serious cases is much greater and that the CCRC was originally envisaged as an
organisation to deal with such serious cases. Given the serious funding constraints that we have identified, we are persuaded that the CCRC should
have greater control over its caseload in order to better focus its resources where they would have the greatest effect.
10. We recommend that the Ministry make statutory provision to allow the CCRC a discretion to refuse to investigate cases dealt with
summarily [in the Magistrates’ Courts], if they deem it not to be in the public interest to investigate, and a discretion to refuse to
investigate sentence-only cases.
11. In order to be effective and to reduce delays the CCRC’s existing section 17 [of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995] powers to require public bodies to
disclose materials need to be supplemented by enforcement measures or sanctions for failure to comply in an appropriate amount of time.
12. We recommend that the Government bring forward legislation to add a time limit for public bodies to comply with a section 17 request,
unless there are extenuating circumstances, and an appropriate sanction in case of non-compliance.
13. The extension of the CCRC’s section 17 powers to cover private bodies is urgently necessary and commands universal support. Successive
Governments have no excuse for failing to do this and any further continuing failure is not acceptable.
14. It should be a matter of great urgency and priority for the next Government to bring forward legislation to implement the extension of the CCRC’s
powers so that it can compel material necessary for it to carry out investigations from private bodies through an application to the courts. No new
Criminal Justice Bill should be introduced without the inclusion of such a clause. Our successor Committee should monitor the progress of this to
ensure that it happens promptly, and should continue to put pressure on the Government if necessary.
15. We are concerned with the evidence that we have received on the variation between Case Review Managers, both in approach and in terms of
expertise. While this does not suggest that there are serious systemic shortcomings in the CCRC’s investigative work, there remains room for
improvement even within its resource constraints.
16. We recommend that the Commission take steps to ensure that Case Review Managers consistently engage fully with applicants
throughout the investigation in cases which progress past Stage 1 screening. As a matter of course this should include meeting with the
applicant in all cases being given a type 3 or type 4 review, unless there are compelling reasons not to. We also recommend that
variations in the experience and expertise of Case Review Managers be dealt with by assigning them to investigations more intelligently,
so as to utilise fully their differing areas of proficiency and knowledge.
17. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, because it is the only body which investigates and refers to the Court of Appeal miscarriages of justice, is
in a unique position to identify issues across the criminal justice system which lead to such miscarriages. We welcome the CCRC’s willingness to
allow academics to perform research alongside it and the steps it is currently taking to build upon that. We acknowledge that the CCRC is in a
difficult position with regard to resources, but we think that there is a great benefit in preventing miscarriages of justice from occurring in the first
place. Greater understanding within the criminal justice system of the causes of miscarriages of justice would benefit the falsely accused, victims,
public safety and the interests of justice, and could produce a saving in time and in money which would otherwise be spent by the courts and the
CCRC in subsequently overturning false convictions.
18. We recommend that the CCRC should develop a formal system for regularly feeding back into all areas of the criminal justice system,
from the police and Crown Prosecution Service through to the courts and the Ministry of Justice, on its understanding of the issues
which are continuing to cause miscarriages of justice.
Conclusion on the CCRC’s effectiveness
19. We conclude that the CCRC is performing its functions reasonably well, and we have identified areas for improvement, but we were struck by the
disparity between what critics believe it to be doing and what it claims that it is doing. At times there was complete disagreement, even on objective
and factual matters. This indicates that at the very least the CCRC has a problem with public perception, including with the awareness of applicants
as to what it can do for them and of all stakeholders, including applicants, their representatives, and others, as to how it operates. The CCRC will
never convince its most vociferous detractors, but it could be doing more to ensure that its work and processes are well understood.
20. The level of successful referrals from the CCRC shows that it remains as necessary a body now as when it was set up. We received very little
evidence advocating its abolition, and even its strongest critics have said that they simply want it to improve. The existence of the CCRC is not
enough in and of itself; it must be given the resources and powers it requires to perform its job effectively. The fundamental constitutional principle
on which our criminal justice system rests and which the Commission exists to uphold is that the guilty are convicted and the innocent go free..
List of contributors who provided written evidence to the Justice Committee:
AF (CCR0039); Bob Woffinden (CCR0033); British False Memory Society (CCR0018); C/O Cardiff University Law School (CCR0030); Cardiff University Law School Innocence Project (CCR0029);
Centre For Criminal Appeals (CCR0027); Clifford Chance LLP (CCR0036); Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CCR0022); Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCR0041); and (CCR0055);
Des Thomas (CCR0010); Dr Peter Freeman (CCR0001); Eifion Edwards (CCR0045); False Allegations Support Organisation (CCR0042); Friends of Susan May (CCR0049); George Skelly
(CCR0050); Glyn Maddocks (CCR0013); (CCR0054) and (CCR0056); Holly Greenwood (CCR0035); Horatio Goodden (CCR0008); JENGbA (CCR0040); Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
(CCR0047) and (CCR0052); Lord Judge (CCR0057); Mark Newby (CCR0021); Maxine Mcevoy (CCR0005); Ministry of Justice (CCR0011) and (CCR0053); Neil Jackson (CCR0046); Nick Johnson
(CCR0032); Northumbria University School of Law (CCR0012); Paul May (CCR0003); Prison Reform Trust (CCR0034); Professor Carolyn Hoyle (CCR0024); Professor Michael Zander QC
(CCR0002), (CCR0048), and (CCR0051); SAFARI (CCR0037); Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCR0043); Stanley Welsh (CCR0031); Stephen Heaton (CCR0015); Steven Jonas
(CCR0028); The General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland (CCR0006); University of Warwick School of Law (CCR0026), Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales (CCR0009);
Victor Nealon (CCR0017)