The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is under fire for failing to adequately support appeals in wrongful conviction cases due to its lack of forensic expertise.
Inside Justice, a charity focused on miscarriages of justice, claims the CCRC often refuses to re-examine forensic evidence, citing speculative concerns.
Experts like Dr.
Ann Priston and Tracy Alexander argue that the commission relies too heavily on legal professionals who lack scientific understanding.
Offers from external experts have been repeatedly rebuffed, with the CCRC allegedly viewing them as biased.
Critics say this approach undermines the integrity of forensic investigations and leaves innocent individuals imprisoned.
The watchdog has faced scrutiny in high-profile cases and is urged to recruit scientific advisors and engage with third-party experts.
The CCRC maintains it uses legal powers to obtain forensic evidence and has recently appointed a full-time forensic science adviser.
However, critics argue that systemic reform is needed to ensure justice is served.
Inside Justice, a charity focused on miscarriages of justice, claims the CCRC often refuses to re-examine forensic evidence, citing speculative concerns.
Experts like Dr.
Ann Priston and Tracy Alexander argue that the commission relies too heavily on legal professionals who lack scientific understanding.
Offers from external experts have been repeatedly rebuffed, with the CCRC allegedly viewing them as biased.
Critics say this approach undermines the integrity of forensic investigations and leaves innocent individuals imprisoned.
The watchdog has faced scrutiny in high-profile cases and is urged to recruit scientific advisors and engage with third-party experts.
The CCRC maintains it uses legal powers to obtain forensic evidence and has recently appointed a full-time forensic science adviser.
However, critics argue that systemic reform is needed to ensure justice is served.
