Michael Ward writes an Open Letter of complaint to the CCRC: "I possess what I say is incontrovertible documentary evidence of lies and cover up at the CCRC"

Michael Ward

Dear Mr (NAME OF CASE REVIEW MANAGER)

As requested by you, I am formulating questions which I deem important to explore with you in the course of further online meetings. I will send you a list of topics by late Tuesday afternoon.

Before sending you this list of topics, I wish to make one or two points for wider dissemination within the CCRC.

I do so because your letter implies that you wish to know what topics I want to raise before agreeing to any such meetings.

In turn, given my past experiences in dealing with the CCRC, this implies that meetings may be refused on topics which the CCRC prefers to keep concealed, not investigated, not acted upon, ignored. 

I do not say this with you in mind. I am concerned about others at the CCRC.

Moreover, what topics the CCRC approves for further meetings is of importance to my current reapplication. 

They include topics which I say the CCRC dealt with dishonestly in 2000-2005. These matters must be reviewed and taken into consideration.

Furthermore, I say that each topic, on its own, justifies my cases being referred. Collectively, the case for references becomes impregnable. In 2005, the CCRC’s refusal to refer was described as “finely balanced” and “a closely run thing”. The weight of new material (including “straddling matters”) is such as to make it inconceivable for references to be denied on this occasion. As earlier explained, straddling matters result in my two cases being interlinked in terms of fairness and safety.

One way for a dishonest CCRC to deny me references might be for the CCRC to refuse to take into consideration meritorious matters by pretending they breach some protocol or other or because they do not meet the necessary tests.

If I appear paranoid, it is because I am. I have good reasons to be. I distrust the CCRC’s procedures, including those in respect of investigating misconduct among its ranks.

Given that this letter will be read by persons inside and outside the CCRC who are not familiar with the relevant background, let me explain in a little more detail.

In 2005, the CCRC Commissioner responsible for my case, Mr Edward Weiss, and his consultant, Mr Ian Henderson, lied to me, to my advisers, and to the Administrative Court about statements they had made to me and to my advisers in the course of the three years of their investigation into my case. They also created false documents. These were not innocent mistakes or conveniently-dismissed “misunderstandings”. They were barefaced lies, told deliberately in furtherance of a conspiracy to refuse references of my cases to the Court of Appeal for “political reasons”. 

These lies were whitewashed by others at the CCRC and, later, by the Administrative Court in processes amounting to noble cause corruption.

Lies do not become truths through the telling of further lies. It does not matter by whom the lies are told and by whom the lies are whitewashed. Lies are lies.

I possess what I say is incontrovertible documentary evidence of lies and cover up at the CCRC. I have repeatedly attempted to encourage the CCRC to investigate my complaints properly. The CCRC has not done so. Not once in 20 years has the CCRC requested documents on the subject. It has continued to cover up.

I say it is the duty of a public body, when presented with evidence-supported complaints of criminality among its own ranks, to take steps of its own to arrange for the complaints to be investigated thoroughly and independently, likely by third parties which have played no role thus far. 

I further say that it is emphatically not for a public body to fold its arms in the face of complaints of criminality on its part, tell the complainant to take his complaints elsewhere, and take no steps of its own to ascertain the facts.

To act in this way is knowingly and deliberately to encourage the non-investigation of criminal and other misconduct perpetrated by a public body. Public bodies are aware that the Police are far less likely to take up an ordinary person’s complaints than if the public body itself requests an investigation.

Against this background, permit me to explain my concerns in respect of the CCRC’s current review.

In her email to me dated 17 July 2023, sent to me at the request of then CCRC Chairman Mrs Helen Pitcher, Mrs Amanda Pearce made clear to me that it was for me to report evidence of CCRC criminality to the Police, not for the CCRC. 

Mrs Pearce showed no interest in the subject. She asked no questions, sought no evidence, offered no discussion.

This, notwithstanding new evidence of corruption having been perpetrated in the course of previous reviews of my case, such new evidence including statements and admissions made by Ian Henderson in 2021 years after my last CCRC review in 2013-2014.

What Mrs Pearce demonstrated to me was that she could not care less if senior CCRC officials had perverted the course of justice in the past. This, in respect of a live application in which the CCRC’s past reviews were highly relevant.

I say this amounted to a breach of proper procedure on the part of Mrs Pearce so grave as, on its own, to merit dismissal. 

What confidence can possibly attach to the CCRC if one of its foremost executives (recently appointed CEO) washes her hands in the face of evidence-supported complaints of criminality at the heart of her organisation? 

She was, for all sakes and purposes, maintaining a cover up of past serious wrongdoing on the part of top CCRC officials when dealing with an applicant’s case.

It has since been discovered that Mrs Pearce was spending practically her entire time at home and not in the Office in Birmingham. This breathtaking indifference to the needs of a properly run public body may explain her indifference to my complaints. It does not absolve her of it.

I am concerned that this dishonest approach is continuing. The lack of information being given to me, the length of time being taken, the failure to request supporting documents, the care you took during the last online meeting to avoid expressing any views, are not signs of an open and honest process of a public body seeking out the truth and fighting for justice for those who are, or may be, innocent or whose convictions are, or may be, unsafe.

It is the approach of a public body with little confidence in itself, which resorts to endless delay, obfuscation, silence, and secrecy in order to avoid exposing its inadequacies and mismanagement.

To those at the CCRC and beyond, if any, who are upset at my hostile approach, I ask that they reflect upon the human cost inflicted upon me and my family by the CCRC. In significant part, my life and my family’s life has been ruined by the CCRC’s corrupt handling of my case. I have lost 20 years, thus far, dealing with a deeply flawed organisation that covers up the lies and fabrications of its senior officials. As I enter the fifth year of my third review, I have not been asked to provide documentary or other evidence of the CCRC’s previous corruption. With scant exception, nor have I been asked to provide evidence on any other subject. Its former Head of Casework and now its CEO could not care less about her organisation’s past criminality towards me. 

I say I am right to regard all of this as evidence of continued disdain for me and my case and of a continuing cover up.

There is zero prospect of me permitting the CCRC to escape condemnation for the way it has dealt with my case. Nor is there any chance of me desisting in my fight for serious punishment to be meted out to persons who committed the misconduct, enabled it, or helped cover it up. 

I am 100% certain of the facts - facts which the CCRC and Mrs Pearce are clearly not interested in.

Against this background, I hope that I will be permitted to raise numerous topics, however uncomfortable for the CCRC, albeit in a time-efficient manner. I want to assist the CCRC understand a complex case which I am 100% certain it does not presently understand to the level necessary on any topic.

For reasons of transparency, please note that this email is being circulated to others.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Ward

Sent by email to the CCRC on the 7th September 2025.

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.