Boyle v Criminal Cases Review Commission

The Criminal Cases Review Commission’s statutory judgment is subject to judicial review, but the reviewing court must respect the Commission’s residual and limited role. It must not decide whether a conviction would succeed on appeal or direct a referral merely because it would assess the fresh material differently.

Delay is not unlawful merely because the review takes a long time. The court examines the circumstances, including the work undertaken and any delay attributable to the applicant. A detailed, rational and open-minded investigation does not establish apparent or inherent bias simply because the Commission rejects the applicant’s arguments.

The claimant, a serving prisoner, challenged the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s handling of his application for a referral to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). He alleged unlawful delay, bias, and failure to perform the tasks required by earlier judicial review proceedings.

Earlier proceedings had resulted in directions for a fresh review, including further investigation of ballistic evidence, alleged police dishonesty, allegedly misleading cross-examination, and the evidence of a witness. The Commission subsequently issued provisional and final statements of reasons and decided not to refer the convictions. The central issues were whether the delay was unlawful, whether damages were available, and whether the Commission’s conduct demonstrated bias.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant’s challenge to delay and bias failed. There was no order as to costs, subject to detailed assessment under the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989.
2. The Commission’s review had lasted several years, but the evidence showed continuous investigative work, substantial material submitted by the claimant, and delay attributable in part to the claimant’s illness and further representations. The length of the review was regrettable but did not itself establish unlawful delay.
3. The court could not determine a full challenge to the final Statement of Reasons within these proceedings. Any challenge to that decision would require fresh proceedings, with properly pleaded grounds and a proper opportunity for the Commission to respond.
4. The court restated the limited scope of judicial review. Under Part II and section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the Commission must consider whether fresh evidence or argument creates a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld, or whether exceptional circumstances justify a reference. The court must not substitute its own assessment of the prospects of an appeal or direct the Commission to refer the case.
5. The Commission’s treatment of the allegations concerning police evidence, ballistic evidence, and allegedly misleading cross-examination was careful and rational. It investigated matters beyond the claimant’s initial complaints and reached conclusions supported by the material. Nothing in that process demonstrated a closed mind, bad faith, or inherent bias.
6. Even assuming unlawful delay and a breach of article 6, damages under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 were not necessary to afford just satisfaction, given the supervisory directions and hearings already provided. It was therefore unnecessary to decide whether article 6 applied or had been breached.

• High Court (Administrative Court): earlier judicial review proceedings led to orders for a fresh CCRC review: [2003] EWHC 2305 (Admin). A later challenge concerning delay was refused: [2004] EWHC 2220 (Admin).
• High Court (Administrative Court): permission was granted on 28 July 2005 for the present judicial review. The claim was dismissed.