"There are so many falsehoods in that brief statement it is hard to know where to begin."
On the same day that CCRC Watch highlighted numerous deceptions told by the CCRC in relation to the case of Andy Malkinson (here), the CCRC released another whopper of a falsehood. According to newspaper reports a CCRC spokesman said that “a prominent criminal law barrister would lead a review of its performance, conducted by a Kings Counsel from outside the organisation” The spokesman said that a review into the Malkinson case “couldn’t be started until we had the judgement from the Court of Appeal, but we have long recognised that it would be important to have one… This is a complex case in which many elements have informed the decisions taken.”
There are so many falsehoods in that brief statement it is hard to know where to begin. Let’s start with the notion that a review into the catastrophic failures of the CCRC in dealing with Andy Malkinson’s submissions has long been planned. Really? So why is the King’s Counsel not named and ready start the review today? Is this not yet another admission of total management incompetence?
Let us say that the need for a review was identified when the case was referred to the Court of Appeal (CoA). The CCRC management then sat twiddling their thumbs instead of making sure that a review could be announced immediately after the CoA quashed the conviction?
Of course they did not plan such a review. It only came about when CCRC Chairman Helen Pitcher was given a dressing down by the Justice Secretary Alex Chalk earlier this week. Pitcher, having refused to apologise to Andy Malkinson and having issued numerous false statements about the case had little choice other than to agree to organise a review.
How about the claim that “this is a complex case in which many elements have informed the decisions taken”. Balderdash! This is a very simple case. The CCRC were informed in 2009 by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) that Malkinson could not possibly be the perpetrator of the crime of rape and another man’s DNA had been located on the victims clothing nearby to where her left nipple had almost been severed. It was not a complex issue for the CCRC to demand production of the police documentation (which they failed to do) which would have highlighted various facts that were not disclosed in court, including information from the victim about scratching the face of her assailant (Malkinson was uninjured when seen by work colleagues the day after the rape took place).
There was no complex decision making involved. Did the CCRC staff simply feel it would be too expensive to pursue DNA testing, despite the CCRC stating repeatedly in Annual Reports that cost would never be a deterrent to pursuing evidence to exonerate an applicant?
How about the claim that the review could not start until after the outcome of the CoA appeal had been heard. Nonsense! The CCRC had sufficient cause to hold a review into their disastrous failures in case management irrespective of the outcome of the CoA determination.
It appears that the CCRC is just addicted to falsehood. Time to start telling the truth CCRC, Helen Pitcher in particular.
By Bill Robertson
Bill Robertson has researched alleged miscarriages of justice for around 20 years and advised on several cases, including the most recent application to the CCRC by Jeremy Bamber.
Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.