§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Criminal Cases Review Commission reaches its projections for improved performance. [45572]
§ Mr. Keith BradleyThe commission's projections are based on performance over a rolling 12-month period, projected forward over the coming 12 months. The table shows the annual case completions since 31 March 1997, when the commission started case working. The commission began by working almost exclusively on the Home Office and Northern Ireland Office transfers. Stage 1 eligibility review was developed during 1997–98, and the Stage 2 Screen process was introduced in May 1999, following development as a pilot process between August 1998 and April 1999. The Stage 2 Screen has allowed the commission to complete about 1,000 cases in 1999–2000, 1,100, in 2000–01 and 1,200 in 2001–02. The number of cases waiting in trays has been reduced from a maximum of 1,208 cases in May 1999 to about 330 by 31 March 2002.
Case review statistics for 1997–2002 Completions Completions1 Under review In trays 1997–98 310 310 217 855 1998–99 492 802 440 1,177 1999–2000 1,015 1,817 465 914 2000–01 1,109 2,926 487 582 2001–02 21,197 24,123 2369 2330 1Cumulative 2Estimated
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Criminal Cases Review Commission has taken to enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system; and how it measures its progress. [45570]
§ Mr. Keith BradleyThe commission publishes an annual report that provides an account of its activities. Since 31 March 2002 will mark completion of the commission's first five years of casework, the 2001–02 report will summarise the progress made over this period, and highlight some of the most significant case referrals.
In July 1997, the commission organised a meeting at which a number of stakeholders expressed their views on miscarriages and how to conduct effective case reviews. Another such meeting is being planned for 2003. In addition the chairman and chief executive will be appearing before the Home Affairs Committee on 30 April 2003.
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Criminal Cases Review Commission has taken to promote the public's understanding of its role; and how it measures its progress. [45569]
862W
§ Mr. Keith BradleyThe commission has taken a number of measures to promote the public's understanding of its role. These include: the revision of its Information Pack in the light of its growing experience; the expansion and monitoring of its website; and the publication of its annual report, which summarises progress and highlights the most significant referrals. It also held a meeting at which a number of stakeholders expressed their views on miscarriages of justice and how to conduct effective case reviews. Another such meeting is planned for next year. The commission has no reliable index of progress to improve public understanding of its role.
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Criminal Cases Review Commission defines a substantial issue for review. [45576]
§ Mr. Keith BradleySubstantial issues are those that require more than five Case Review Manager days of effort.
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the stakeholders are of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [45568]
§ Mr. Keith BradleyStakeholders include
- potential applicants and their representatives;
- courts of appeal (as recipients of referrals);
- The Court of Appeal (as a referring body);
- my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) (in relation to Her Majesty's Prerogative of Mercy);
- the Criminal Justice System and its agencies; and
- the Government represented by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department (Mr. Blunkett) and Northern Ireland (Dr. Reid).
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the precise process modifications made by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to achieve its goals. [45571]
§ Mr. Keith BradleyAbout 30 per cent. of the applications to the Commission are found to be ineligible at Stage 1. During 2001–02, the Process Improvement Project (PIP) 1 recommended several actions to reduce this proportion, particularly improved communications, and further encouragement to prospective applicants to seek legal advice.
The time to review cases at Stage 1, Stage 2 Screen and Stages 2–3 depends on such factors as the availability of files and other materials, timeliness of responses from applicants and their advisers, and delays in obtaining expert reports. PIP 2 has been concerned with minimising these delays. In that regard, the Government announced 863W on 5 March 2001 that a £350,000 joint proposal from the commission and the Court of Appeal (to the Invest to Save scheme) for the electronic transfer of files had been successful. Work is still in progress on this project.
A goal for 2001–02 was to minimise the case accumulation at Stage 2 Screen. This will be achieved by 31 March 2002, or soon afterwards, and will be followed by reorganisation of Stage 2 Screen for steady-state operation. In future, some Stage 2 Screen cases will be distributed to case review managers outside the Stage 2 Screen group, to optimise their case portfolios.
During 2000–01, the commission implemented a computerised case management information (Vectus) and completed the necessary data migration. Since 1 April 2001, the benefits (of improved case management, with greatly reduced labour in tracking the progress of individual cases and in presenting casework statistics) have begun to flow.