Appeals against Conviction and the Principle of Finality
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11448609 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kate Malleson (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1994 |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 151 |
| Publication date | 1994-03-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Law and Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0263-323X • E-ISSN: 1467-6478 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/1410276 |
| OpenAlex | W2319236420 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 1 |
Much of the evidence relating to the criminal review process which was submitted to the Royal Commission stressed that a principal reason why miscarriages of justice were not being identified and corrected was that the Court of Appeal and the Home Office were too restrictive in exercising their powers to review convictions. In response to these criticisms, the Commission proposed a number of reforms to the powers of the Court of Appeal and the establishment of a new independent review body, the Criminal Cases Review Authority (CCRA) to replace the function which the Home Office now carries out of investigating cases which have been turned down by the Court and referring back those which are believed to involve a miscarriage of justice. Although setting up the CCRA would constitute a major new initiative, the overall structure of the review process would remain fundamentally unchanged since the Commission recommended that the roles of the Court and the review body should be very similar to the present process. The function of the CCRA would, like the Home Office, be essentially advisory, in that it would not be given any powers to interfere with a conviction and every case would ultimately be decided by the Court of Appeal. The effectiveness of the review body would continue to be dependent on the performance of the judges and their approach to the cases which the Court hears. Thus, in order to assess the likely effects of the proposals, it is important to understand the approach of the appeal judges to the review process and their powers to overturn convictions and to examine more closely why the Court has, to date, adopted such a narrow approach to its powers. One of the main reasons why judges in the Court of Appeal so consistently take a restrictive approach to their roles in reviewing convictions is their concern not to undermine the principle of finality in the criminal justice process. Despite the fact that this principle is a recurring preoccupation amongst the judiciary, it has been relatively neglected in criminal justice research. Judges stress the fact that an important function of the judicial
Conviction · Criminology · Law and economics · Political science · Sociology · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Criminal Law and Evidence · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law
| Citations per year | 0.21 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2007 - 2020 (14) |
| Highly cited | No |