Short post, mentions Alisdair? How right- and yet how difficult sometimes. I very much agree with his second paragraph, save that I react against scrapping the CCRC and starting again. As he adds any such body will rarely if ever come high in the popularity stakes of government -and, yes, Parliamentarians (with some honourable exceptions- and certainly the Court of Appeal has done no one any favours by having reacted so hostilely to good faith referrals from this final resort body and the serious media campaigners. I am inclined to write off Shabana Mahmood’s shooting from the hip to her genuine horror concerning the stain on the system which is the Malkinson case. Again, I am with Alisdair in wondering quite why the Justice Committee might not have held an evidence session with a further such built in for when Ms Knellerv-understandably in grieving- can attend. To mix my metaphors, given all that has gone on and will no doubt follow, the post of Chair will noe if not before be a poisoned chalice on stilts. All the same, when seeking the post I doubt that candidates in interview feature prominently the near impossibility of their task, save to emphasise their consummate skills and resolve to succeed notwithstanding. I have said before that within a lamentably short interval following the CCRC became more or less of a “no go” area for government and Parliament as though with a legislative flourish (“been there, done that-next agenda item”) the entire landscape of genuine miscarriages had been wafted away. I dare to add that the CA might do us all a favour by being more restrained in its reactions in future. Also how indeed can it really be right for the one person to be of the Commission and on the JAC simultaneously? And just a part time job? Come on!
Helen Pitcher clearly needed to go. It is not uncommon in these organisations for the chair to be held responsible when major failings happen, in the same way ministers resign when something bad goes on in their ministry. In neither case is it necessarily directly their fault (although I think that is less clear in respect of Helen Pitcher), and both are paid a lot of money to take that risk. It is always understood. Ms Pitcher has made a series of unfortunate statements around the Malkinson case and, as you note, successive LCs, from both parties, had no confidence in her, so it was right that she went. As an aside, I happen to agree with those that argue that the same person should not chair the JAC and CCRC.
I think the lack of finding a replacement chair is not directly linked. It is obviously a factor, in that it shows that you will be held responsible for the failings of the organisation, but I think the bigger issue is that the CCRC has always been underfunded and for a considerable time did not have the statutory number of commissioners. It has never been considered politically a serious body, which given its purpose is somewhat unusual. There are serious operational and strategic failures, but its legacy of failings does make me wonder whether it would be better to scrap it and start again.
However, it's never going to be a politically attractive unit. While it will occasionally find miscarriages of justice (and when you read the interim report, it is clear that they failed Malkinson terribly), much of their work is dealing with cases where there is no prospect of success, and when it is presented as seeking to undermine convictions, it's public and political profile is always going to be difficult. Indeed, it should be remembered, that the Court of Appeal has always been skeptical about it, and has made some fairly stinging comments over the years. Of course, given the CCRC's job is to show the CACD got it wrong, that is not entirely surprising... with all that in the mix, even for the high part-time salary it offers, you can see why people are not falling over themselves to be the chair.
One day I will write a short post in his blog. Apologies!
Short post, mentions Alisdair? How right- and yet how difficult sometimes. I very much agree with his second paragraph, save that I react against scrapping the CCRC and starting again. As he adds any such body will rarely if ever come high in the popularity stakes of government -and, yes, Parliamentarians (with some honourable exceptions- and certainly the Court of Appeal has done no one any favours by having reacted so hostilely to good faith referrals from this final resort body and the serious media campaigners. I am inclined to write off Shabana Mahmood’s shooting from the hip to her genuine horror concerning the stain on the system which is the Malkinson case. Again, I am with Alisdair in wondering quite why the Justice Committee might not have held an evidence session with a further such built in for when Ms Knellerv-understandably in grieving- can attend. To mix my metaphors, given all that has gone on and will no doubt follow, the post of Chair will noe if not before be a poisoned chalice on stilts. All the same, when seeking the post I doubt that candidates in interview feature prominently the near impossibility of their task, save to emphasise their consummate skills and resolve to succeed notwithstanding. I have said before that within a lamentably short interval following the CCRC became more or less of a “no go” area for government and Parliament as though with a legislative flourish (“been there, done that-next agenda item”) the entire landscape of genuine miscarriages had been wafted away. I dare to add that the CA might do us all a favour by being more restrained in its reactions in future. Also how indeed can it really be right for the one person to be of the Commission and on the JAC simultaneously? And just a part time job? Come on!
Helen Pitcher clearly needed to go. It is not uncommon in these organisations for the chair to be held responsible when major failings happen, in the same way ministers resign when something bad goes on in their ministry. In neither case is it necessarily directly their fault (although I think that is less clear in respect of Helen Pitcher), and both are paid a lot of money to take that risk. It is always understood. Ms Pitcher has made a series of unfortunate statements around the Malkinson case and, as you note, successive LCs, from both parties, had no confidence in her, so it was right that she went. As an aside, I happen to agree with those that argue that the same person should not chair the JAC and CCRC.
I think the lack of finding a replacement chair is not directly linked. It is obviously a factor, in that it shows that you will be held responsible for the failings of the organisation, but I think the bigger issue is that the CCRC has always been underfunded and for a considerable time did not have the statutory number of commissioners. It has never been considered politically a serious body, which given its purpose is somewhat unusual. There are serious operational and strategic failures, but its legacy of failings does make me wonder whether it would be better to scrap it and start again.
However, it's never going to be a politically attractive unit. While it will occasionally find miscarriages of justice (and when you read the interim report, it is clear that they failed Malkinson terribly), much of their work is dealing with cases where there is no prospect of success, and when it is presented as seeking to undermine convictions, it's public and political profile is always going to be difficult. Indeed, it should be remembered, that the Court of Appeal has always been skeptical about it, and has made some fairly stinging comments over the years. Of course, given the CCRC's job is to show the CACD got it wrong, that is not entirely surprising... with all that in the mix, even for the high part-time salary it offers, you can see why people are not falling over themselves to be the chair.
One day I will write a short post in his blog. Apologies!
No apologies needed. The funding problem is fundamental. For various reasons, I needed to keep this piece reasonably concise.