• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Criminal Cases Review Commission announced for New Zealand

Samson

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
12,733
The Scottish model is cited, so of course we should consider if that is functioning well. I see mixed results for Lockerbie, where it seems they blame a Maltese shopkeeper for the fiasco, rather than call to account the key players.
In New Zealand we need some public lynchings of Police chiefs rather than a candy floss punching exercise.
In England they are making a dog's breakfast of the Jeremy Bamber miscarriage.
I don't get high hopes, but it is a step ahead of this woman

Justice Minister Judith Collins says New Zealand’s criminal justice system has robust safeguards against miscarriages of justice through the appeals process and the Royal prerogative of mercy.

http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news-a...-no-need-for-criminal-cases-review-commission
 
Samson said:
The Scottish model is cited, so of course we should consider if that is functioning well. I see mixed results for Lockerbie, where it seems they blame a Maltese shopkeeper for the fiasco, rather than call to account the key players.
In New Zealand we need some public lynchings of Police chiefs rather than a candy floss punching exercise.
In England they are making a dog's breakfast of the Jeremy Bamber miscarriage.I don't get high hopes, but it is a step ahead of this woman

Justice Minister Judith Collins says New Zealand’s criminal justice system has robust safeguards against miscarriages of justice through the appeals process and the Royal prerogative of mercy.

http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news-a...-no-need-for-criminal-cases-review-commission
Click to expand...

Making? Why the current tense? Bamber's conviction isn't currently under review. It was examined by the CCRC who didn't put it back to the Court of Appeal. He was quite rightly found guilty, and he has had that verdict tested at every available level.

The CCRC has the following statistics:

The CCRC started work in April 1997. Between then and 31st August 2017 it has:

Referred 634 cases
Of the 626 cases where appeals have been heard by the courts; 419 appeals were allowed and 194 dismissed
638 cases are currently under review and 380 are awaiting review
In that period the CCRC received a total of 22,695 applications (including all ineligible cases) and had completed 21,678 of them.

(The difference between the total number of CCRC referrals heard by the appeal courts and the number of outcomes recorded is accounted for by cases where the appeal proceedings have been heard but the judgement is awaited and a number of cases that were referred by the CCRC but the appeal was abandoned.)
Click to expand...

From here.

That would suggest a process which is working well, I'd say.

ETA...........You'd lynch the police as a result of disagreement over court decisions. Really? Your background of blaming the wrong people and having no idea who is responsible for what shines through brightly, yet again.
 
Last edited:
Hi Mike. The British CCRC dropped the ball in Bamber. The process is meant to look at things in all perspectives, a continuity of the crime scene was never achieved in Bamber, and much other evidence.

Anyway there are some changes beginning in New Zealand in cases of potential false convictions. It may well be those changes achieve a wider look at such cases, look for the hallmarks and shortfalls they usually propel miscarriages of justice.
 
Fixit said:
Hi Mike. The British CCRC dropped the ball in Bamber. The process is meant to look at things in all perspectives, a continuity of the crime scene was never achieved in Bamber, and much other evidence.......
Click to expand...

Does "dropped the ball" now mean "reached a conclusion I don't agree with"?

There was no ball to drop. The crime-scene was probably the most mis-handled one in the history of modern British crime, but even that couldn't disguise Bamber's guilt.
 
MikeG said:
Does "dropped the ball" now mean "reached a conclusion I don't agree with"?
Click to expand...


"Verb. drop the ball. (idiomatic) To fail in one's responsibilities or duties, or to make a mistake, especially at a critical point or when the result is very negative."

MikeG said:
There was no ball to drop. The crime-scene was probably the most mis-handled one in the history of modern British crime, but even that couldn't disguise Bamber's guilt.
Click to expand...

There was nothing wrong with the initial crime-scene investigation and the police arrived at the correct conclusion. It was not until ill-natured 'evidence' that was installed into consideration a month later did things start getting mis-handled.
 
MikeG said:
Does "dropped the ball" now mean "reached a conclusion I don't agree with"?

There was no ball to drop. The crime-scene was probably the most mis-handled one in the history of modern British crime, but even that couldn't disguise Bamber's guilt.
Click to expand...

I've course I don't agree with it because it's illogical. However this thread is about the 'usefulness' of a CCRC - and what may happen in NZ where fortunately despite a system that relies on 'executive powers' some of the old miscarriages of justice are being pulled apart. A fair verdict follows a fair trial, a botched inquiry doesn't lead to a fair trial - it leads to public disquiet, particularly where there is 'miracle' evidence and 'chance' finds after extensive crime scene searches. These are the headings that should require logical examination away from the adversarial system. If the building blocks are faulty, as you have admitted in the Bamber case, any attempts to resurrect a safe inquiry must be treated with sharp caution by a CCRC, not, as happened in Bamber forgiveness of 'mistakes' to favour the Crown, because that has already happened in the Courts and the verdict therefore remains unsafe.

I read a very interesting paper from an academic recently which described the British system of CCRC being set up using the wrong type of legislation, in other words beginning from a position that may have favoured the status quo, rather than a step outside to look back in at what might have gone wrong in a case which could be, or is alleged to be, a false conviction.

New Zealand may now have a chance to so something better than it has been able to do with the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, but which should, in my opinion identify known pointers toward miscarriages of justice in any case coming before it and see if the case against the convicted person had employed the known strategies that have resulted in false convictions worldwide. Your Bamber case for example and it's sticking plasters which followed a botched crime scene, evidence turning up after searches had already been made, witnesses with baggage, faulty crime scene analysis - all of which goes against a fair trial at the outset. You know the sort of stuff, a type of witchcraft which obtains followers and secret websites that allow no dissent of opinions because all the good folk 'know' what happened and become afraid or offended if someone tells them they're talking crap.

I do remember that crime scene enactment you did which ultimately favoured the innocence of Jeremy Bamber but which however upset you by reason that it appeared not to be the result you wanted. People wanting particular results and trying and trying until they get them is a characteristic of a miscarriages of justice worldwide. Certainly in New Zealand, but it appears our Courts may be modernising their view - not buying into one side or the other, or fresh designs that hide corrupt police and prosecution practices. Justice is about open mindedness and not forgiving inquiry 'mistakes' in a 'she'll be right Jack' kind of way.
 
Fixit said:
.........I read a very interesting paper from an academic recently which described the British system of CCRC being set up using the wrong type of legislation, in other words beginning from a position that may have favoured the status quo, rather than a step outside to look back in at what might have gone wrong in a case which could be, or is alleged to be, a false conviction..........
Click to expand...

That doesn't really stack up in light of the figures I quoted, though. The CCRC has had a lot of cases overturned.
 
From wiki for English CCRC

In order to refer a case for appeal, the Commission usually has to identify new evidence or a new legal argument that makes the case look significantly different. This evidence or argument must not have been considered at the time of the trial, at the initial appeal, or in an earlier application to the Commission. Again, there is an "exceptional circumstances" caveat that allows the Commission to refer cases with no new evidence or argument, but such instances are extremely rare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Cases_Review_Commission

Straightaway I see a problem.
As a specific and narrow example in a case beset with problems, in Bamber the crime scene told a story that Mike notwithstanding, most of us on IA regarded as inconsistent with the jury verdict. This does not concern a legal argument and it does not involve new evidence.
It concerns a discussion of the obvious, the mechanics of persuading a wide awake woman to pose for a point blank gun shot with a trajectory consistent with self infliction, while her bullet ridden mother's body lies nearby.
This should be able to be brought to front and center of any discussion by the CCRC, with a direction to the appeal court to consider all the previous cases that exhibit this phenomenon from anywhere in the world, and the probability of success with bodies strewn nearby. Instead the focus continued to be that damn silencer and what might have been human mixed blood within.
In other words what I read in the wiki entry is another phrasing of the standard appeal process, where people burn their brains trying to construe obvious faults with the jury verdict's consideration of the existing evidence into new evidence.

This approach will not help in New Zealand.
 
Last edited:
Fixit said:
You're making stuff up. You didn't know that you had shown the impossibility of Neville having been shot on the stairs until it was pointed out to you. I gather you're still sore about that. Bad luck, not much better than the copper's that re-solved the case after it was worked out as being a simple murder suicide. But you contributed to helping others understand that - even though it was their intention. You seem to also be confused that I said anything at all about your dear leader. Glad to see you laugh about a botched inquiry that sent a man away for life because of the certainty of what you know.
Click to expand...
To clarify, I contended that Theresa May could have intervened as home secretary, Mike disagrees, I think he is wrong.
Let's keep this civil. I assume that the home scretary could keep whacking heads together at the CCRC till they grow up and look at the crime scene evidence as the starting point, not the evidence planted by the relatives after the crime scene was locked in.
This is seriously what New Zealand needs, time to educate Andrew Little, and forget what the lawyers will try to establish.
 
Samson said:
.........I assume that the home scretary could keep whacking heads together at the CCRC........
Click to expand...

See what I mean? You can tell Samson 'til the cows come home that the CCRC, and all justice matters, are in the remit of the Ministry of Justice, not the Home Office........but still he'll keep on trotting out the same old crap nonetheless. <snip>


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rules 0/12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeG said:
See what I mean? You can tell Samson 'til the cows come home that the CCRC, and all justice matters, are in the remit of the Ministry of Justice, not the Home Office........but still he'll keep on trotting out the same old crap nonetheless. <snip>
Click to expand...


I think it was during, if not after her tenure that change was made. However she is always named as a co-conspirator aginst Bamber in the open letters by his supporters.


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Quoted post edited to conform.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some posts that started discussing the details of the Bamber case were moved to here. Please keep to the topic of the role of a CCRC in this thread.

Thank you!
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
Talking through how a functioning CCRC system is helpful in solving the larger problem - how Miscarriages of Justice work and how to undo or prevent them. Prevention of course being by far the best option. Prevention comes when trial courts readily recognize the aspects of false convictions and the way they unfold, also when police get investigated for any crimes they may commit during an inquiry. It's not the falsely accused who conduct the inquiry, they don't somehow put themselves in prison - it happens because the authorities cheat and the Courts are not alert to it, even if it is an isolated and rare event that reaches the Court. So somehow that should form part of the width of a CCRC, not only sifting through the pieces.
 
Fixit said:
Talking through how a functioning CCRC system is helpful in solving the larger problem - how Miscarriages of Justice work and how to undo or prevent them. Prevention of course being by far the best option. Prevention comes when trial courts readily recognize the aspects of false convictions and the way they unfold, also when police get investigated for any crimes they may commit during an inquiry. It's not the falsely accused who conduct the inquiry, they don't somehow put themselves in prison - it happens because the authorities cheat and the Courts are not alert to it, even if it is an isolated and rare event that reaches the Court. So somehow that should form part of the width of a CCRC, not only sifting through the pieces.
Click to expand...

The problem especially with an effective model of a CCRC is that it addresses individual issues and not system failures. There seems no clear system to identify common factors leading to miscarriages of justice and producing solutions to prevent them happening in the first case. In some ways there needs to be a feedback system.
 
Planigale said:
The problem especially with an effective model of a CCRC is that it addresses individual issues and not system failures. There seems no clear system to identify common factors leading to miscarriages of justice and producing solutions to prevent them happening in the first case. In some ways there needs to be a feedback system.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. I am not so interested in success stories but those where the CCRC has been visited and appears to have left alive and kicking a serious miscarriage of justice. In New Zealand we have several cases that can be looked at to help design a fail safe system. I believe one is possible, even if a couple of guilty parties here and there are beneficiaries.
 
Planigale said:
The problem especially with an effective model of a CCRC is that it addresses individual issues and not system failures. There seems no clear system to identify common factors leading to miscarriages of justice and producing solutions to prevent them happening in the first case. In some ways there needs to be a feedback system.
Click to expand...

I often wonder if they're are failures, or part of the toolbox in difficult cases. On many occasions in NZ where there have been failures, the same police have been involved. One could consider a position is taken that reaches the top and is endorsed.
 
Again I see in North and South Mike White says Andrew Little visited Scotland 2013. It is cited as an outstanding model by those writing the new protocols. Still interested to hear what Rolfe has to say.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom