|
CCRC Slammed by Court of Appeal for Unreasonable
Delay
Lord Justice Davis: ‘Finally,
we will direct that a transcript of this judgment is to
be provided and considered by the Criminal Cases Review
Commission. We do not wish unduly to belabour the point
about delay; but, equally, this cannot and should not be
glossed over or passed by. It remains of concern that
the latest response of the Criminal Cases Review
Commission would not seem to indicate much penitence at
what has occurred. Delay may be unavoidable in some
situations, and we repeat that we understand all the
many pressures on the Criminal Cases Review Commission,
which has but limited resources. Even so, a delay of 3
years and 9 months in a case of this particular kind is
simply not good enough.
In August 2019 the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred
the case of Tracey Newell to the Court of Appeal. On 29
November 2012, at Inner London Crown, Ms Newell pleaded
guilty to seven counts of benefit fraud. The counts related
to claims for Housing and Council Tax Benefit covering the
period from 1 August 2005 to 5 December 2012. n January
2013, Ms Newell was sentenced to 18 weeks’ imprisonment,
suspended for 18 months, and 150 hours unpaid work.
Confiscation proceedings were instigated. Later that year a
Confiscation Order was made for £17,637.93, and Ms Newell
was ordered to pay within 28 days or serve 12 months’
imprisonment in default. Ms Newell appealed against the
Confiscation Order, but in April 2014, the Full Court
dismissed the appeal. However, when, at the request of
Southwark Council, the enforcement of the Confiscation Order
for £17,637.93 was considered at Inner London Crown Court in
December 2014, the Judge concluded that, in spite of the
decision of the First-Tier Tribunal, the original order
remained valid and that he did not have jurisdiction to
change it.
Ms Newell applied to the CCRC for a review of her case in
January 2016. It took the CCRC 3 years and 9 months to make
the referral. The decision in this case judgement was handed
down on Thursday, 20 February 2020, in favour of Tracy
Newell, confiscation quashed.
Below the relevant paragraphs condemning the CCRC
29. The first point to which we must allude is to the very
great delay that has occurred here. As we have said, the
substantive confiscation proceedings were to be regarded as
at an end by, at the latest, December 2014. The application
on behalf of the appellant to the Criminal Cases Review
Commission was not made until January 2016. And the
reference was not made to this court until August 2019.
30. This delay is not in any substantial way addressed by
the reference itself. This court accordingly, in advance of
the hearing today, sought an explanation for what had
occurred. The explanation provided to this court yesterday
(and we appreciate that the Criminal Cases Review Commission
would have had relatively little time to put in a full
response) with all respect, barely confronts the realities
of the delay.
31. It is said that at the time of the initial application
in 2016 there was a huge backlog within the Criminal Cases
Review Commission and thus it was that the application was
not considered until January 2017. As to the lapse of time
thereafter, it then is sought to be said that the subsequent
period was to a considerable extent taken up by
correspondence between the Criminal Cases Review Commission
and the London Borough of Southwark, as well as by internal
consideration which was said to be needed in respect of the
responses from the London Borough of Southwark.
32.We have noted all that has been thus far said. But the
reality is that in this time from 2017 there were in effect
two substantive letters from the Criminal Cases Review
Commission to the London Borough of Southwark in that time
and two substantive responses from the London Borough of
Southwark. Periods of months elapsed before the letters were
sent, responded to, queried and responded to again.
Moreover, it is not at all obvious to us that those
responses, lengthy though they are, in truth add anything
material to the sum of knowledge which was already known and
addressed by the Tribunal judge in 2014. Ms Rose herself
accepted as much.
33. The Criminal Cases Review Commission performs a valuable
and important function. The Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division) has frequently been greatly assisted by it in
achieving justice. We also entirely understand that the
Criminal Cases Review Commission is under enormous pressure,
with a huge case load and limited resources. We have regard
to that of course, and we have sympathy for the Criminal
Cases Review Commission in its position. But on any view, a
delay of some 3 years and 9 months in dealing with a case of
this kind is surely unacceptable. There are some cases
before the Criminal Cases Review Commission which
unquestionably need lengthy and meticulous and
time-consuming investigation. But this was not of them.
Here, the correspondence conducted was conducted in a
desultory way and in effect seems to have achieved nothing
of any material consequence different from what had been
identified in 2014. No sense of any kind of urgency or
indeed any kind of promptitude is revealed, notwithstanding
that the case had not even first been addressed until
January 2017 and so particular promptitude thereafter might
have been expected.
34. Also, it is rather disconcerting, we have to say, that
in its very recent written response, the Criminal Cases
Review Commission seems to intimate no expression of
contrition or apology or regret at all. Indeed, many of the
points that need in this case to be addressed – for example,
as to the proper application of s.23 of the Criminal Appeal
Act 1968 – are not fully addressed in that response,
notwithstanding the court's query. Further, unfortunately it
seems that no representative of the Criminal Cases Review
Commission was available to appear before the court today,
in spite of the court's request; and we had to raise our
continuing concerns with Ms Rose, who, of course, had no
instructions on the Criminal Cases Review Commission's
behalf. We are grateful to her for her attempt to explain
matters; but all we can say is that the position is still to
be considered as thoroughly unsatisfactory.
47. Finally, we will direct that a transcript of this
judgment is to be provided and considered by the Criminal
Cases Review Commission. We do not wish unduly to belabour
the point about delay; but, equally, this cannot and should
not be glossed over or passed by. It remains of concern that
the latest response of the Criminal Cases Review Commission
would not seem to indicate much penitence at what has
occurred. Delay may be unavoidable in some situations, and
we repeat that we understand all the many pressures on the
Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has but limited
resources. Even so, a delay of 3 years and 9 months in a
case of this particular kind is simply not good enough.
Read the full transcript: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2020/351.html
|