This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Number of Cases referred to you without going to the Court of Appeal'.

Criminal Cases Review Commission
Annual Report and Accounts

Criminal Cases Review Commission
Annual Report and Accounts 2015/16
Report presented to Parliament pursuant to paragraph 8(3) 
of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.
Accounts presented to Parliament pursuant to paragraph 9(4) 
of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.
A copy of the Annual Report and Accounts is presented to the Northern Ireland
Assembly pursuant to paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 21st July 2016.
HC 244

© Crown copyright 2016
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except 
where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit
government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National 
Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email:
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain 
permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at 
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: 
Criminal Cases Review Commission, 5 St Philip's Place, Birmingham B3 2PW.
Print ISBN 9781474133876 
Web ISBN 9781474133883
ID 01061615 56042 07/16
Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. 
Printed in the UK by the Wil iams Lea Group on behalf of the Control er of 
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

z  to bring justice to the wrongly convicted by referring cases to the 
Our vision  appelate courts
and purpose:  z  to identify, investigate and correct miscarriages of justice in a timely 
z  to act independently in the interests of justice and to use our unique 
knowledge and experience to improve the criminal justice system and 
inspire confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice process
z  to investigate cases as efficiently and effectively as possible with 
Our overall aims: thoroughness and care
z  to work constructively with our stakeholders and to the highest standards 
of quality
z  to treat applicants, and anyone affected by our work, with courtesy, 
respect and consideration
z  to promote public understanding of the Commission’s role
Our values:  z independence
z integrity
z impartiality
z professionalism
z accountability
z transparency
z timeliness

Section One: 
Performance Report 
  - Overview   
    - Chair’s Foreword 
- Introduction from the Chief Executive 
    - The Commission general y in 2015/16 
  - Analysis of Performance 
Section Two: 
Accountability Report 
-  Corporate Governance Report 
- The Directors’ Report 
    - Statement of Accounting Officer’s Responsibilities 
    - Governance Statement 
-  Remuneration and Staff Report 
-  Parliamentary Accountability and Audit Report 
  -  Certificate and Report of the Comptrol er and Auditor General  59
Section Three:  Financial Statements 
-  Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure 
  -  Statement of Financial Position 
  -  Statement of Cash Flows 
  -  Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity  
  - Notes to the accounts 
Section Four: 
Tables & Appendices 
  - Table 1: Commission referrals to the appeal courts 
  - Table 2: Commission referrals heard by the appeal courts 
  - Appendix 1: Key Performance Indicators and results 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16

Section One
Performance Report
This section is in two parts. The first is the overview section which contains 
a foreword from our Chair and an introduction to the report from our 
Chief Executive. It also provides a summary of the Commission’s purpose, 
its powers and performance as well as an outline of the key risks to its 
performance and the achievement of its aims. This overview is designed so that 
readers will gain a reasonable understanding of the Commission and its current 
position without the need to look further into this report unless they want to 
find further or specific details. 
The second part provides more detailed analysis of how the Commission has 
performed in the last year in specific areas such as the main casework function 
of the Commission as well as how it has performed financial y and in other 
areas of its work.
Never again. That’s what we always say. Never again after the Guildford Four and 
Birmingham Six. But only recently we have had Rotherham and Rochdale. We have 
had undercover policing malpractice in The Metropolitan Police. We have just had 
Hil sborough. Although different in many ways, what these all had in common is 
that they represented major injustices – failures to protect the innocent or properly 
bring to justice the guilty – brought about by systematic failures in the investigation 
and prosecution of crime. So not, “Never again” but “Time after Time”.
There have been improvements in our justice system and – to quote the familiar 
phrase – lessons have been learned. But failures, miscarriages and cover-ups 
will always be with us because the ingredients which give rise to them are ever 
present. Pressure to get results, institutional complacency, the temptation to cover 
up rather than come clean, professional shortcomings, moral weakness, fear of 
failure and fear of exposure. The mistakes and cover-ups may not in the future 
take the same form as in the past. But they will still occur. The safeguard is not, or 
not just, to expect organisations and individuals to have high standards and police 
themselves. It is also to have powerful, independent regulators with appropriate 
powers and adequate funding to scrutinise, investigate and hold publical y to 
In the past twelve months this Commission has continued to see a steady 
stream of miscarriages. The single most frequent cause continues to be failure 
to disclose to the defence information which could have assisted the accused. 
Sometimes the prosecution team were unaware that they possessed the material 
or misunderstood its significance. On other occasions it was deliberately 
suppressed. But whatever the reason, the effect on the accused is the same. An 
individual who perhaps should never have been prosecuted or whose conviction 
was unsafe suffers unnecessarily because the State did not do a proper job. Not 
on the shocking scale of a Hil sborough or a Rotherham. But potential y just as 
devastating to individuals. And just as insidious is the damage which such failures 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
do to the integrity of, and confidence in, the criminal justice system. Given our 
concern about disclosure failures in particular, I have recently written to the 
Law Officers, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the National Police Chief’s 
Council drawing attention to this problem and its costs. 
I am pleased to report that notwithstanding the financial pressures it faces, the 
Ministry of Justice has continued to maintain current levels of funding for the 
Commission. This represents a vote of confidence in this Commission and in the 
importance of our work. I am also pleased to report that, with al -party support, a 
Private Member’s Bill to strengthen our investigative powers, brought forward by 
Wil iam Wragg MP, has now become law. This legislation will rectify a longstanding 
anomaly and bring our powers to obtain information from private bodies in line 
with our powers to obtain information from public bodies. This will greatly assist 
us in fulfil ing our proactive role of helping to right individual wrongs and helping 
to protect the system as a whole. 
The work of the Commission attracts its own critics and like any organisation 
we can make mistakes. However, with regard to Asylum and Immigration cases 
some national press comment was so misleading that we had to take the unusual 
step of placing an article on our website in rebuttal. Suffice to say here that as a 
Commission we do not think it appropriate to distinguish between miscarriages 
of justice affecting different groups of people. British justice is and must always 
remain, justice for al , with all entitled to equal treatment. 
In March the Supreme Court decided in the wel -reported case of Jogee that the 
law had taken a “wrong turn” some thirty years ago when determining the mental 
element which the law requires to be proved when a defendant is accused of 
being a secondary party to a crime. The test had been whether the secondary 
party foresaw the possibility of the principal party committing the crime. What 
Jogee says is that the correct test for the mental element of secondary liability is 
intention to assist or encourage the crime. Foresight may be evidence (perhaps 
strong evidence) of intent to assist or encourage. But it is a question for the jury in 
every case whether the intention to assist or encourage is actual y shown.
This decision has already had a considerable impact on our work. We have to date 
received twenty-seven fresh applications in relation to these “joint enterprise” 
types of conviction. We are also looking at twenty of our previously closed 
cases as well as some 70 cases which were already under review. As ever with 
convictions, cases are fact specific and the number of these cases that will end 
up with the Court of Appeal, whether directly or by way of a Commission referral, 
will depend on how their individual circumstances relate to the law as now set 
out in Jogee. But there can be no doubt that the amount of additional work for the 
Commission wil  be substantial. 
There is a further point. This Commission can only look at cases which it receives; 
as can the Courts. This “wrong turn” is a “wrong turn” by the State. In 2005, 
the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, commissioned a review of shaken 
baby syndrome. The Law Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions may 
wish to consider whether a similar approach is required here. Given the publicity 
surrounding the Jogee judgment, it might be thought unlikely that any potential 
miscarriages will be overlooked. But it would be as well to be sure. 
Final y, a word of thanks to staff and Commissioners here who have managed 
to reduce queues and waiting times for applicants to us, while maintaining the 
thoroughness and quality of our reviews, by dint of hard work and improved ways 
of working. Our aim is to eliminate queues entirely over the next two years and we 
are currently on course to achieve that goal.
Richard Foster CBE Chair

Introduction from the 
Chief Executive
Over the last three years we have adapted to cope with an increase of around 
50% in the number of applications we receive. It seems clear that, certainly for the 
time-being, receiving around 1,500 applications a year is the “new normal” for us. 
The increase has undoubtedly placed enormous pressure on us as an organisation 
which is committed to conducting high quality investigations into potential 
miscarriages of justice. The pressure we feel may not be comparable with that felt 
by applicants who have to wait much longer than they should for us to review their 
cases, but it is real nonetheless. We have asked a great deal of our staff as we 
have fought to maintain standards and increase productivity; they have responded 
bril iantly and I am most grateful for that.
In my introduction to last year’s report I explained that we were making some 
changes to how we work in order to address the increased workload and I said 
that we were starting to see results.
Those changes were partly borne of necessity – like everyone else, we are being 
asked to do more work with less money – but they were also borne out of a 
recognition that when it comes to case reviews, timeliness is an essential part 
of quality. With this in mind, and building on the changes made in 2014/15, we 
have over the last 12 months or so carried out a “whole system review” of how 
we work. This was a comprehensive exercise involving people throughout the 
organisation. The introduction of the many changes that we devised together, and 
the hard work and commitment of everyone at the Commission, have al owed us 
to make really significant improvements in the timeliness while maintaining the 
quality of our work. As a result, we are on track to achieve our corporate goal of 
being able to al ocate cases as we receive them, al owing for a three-month period 
in which we will obtain the material needed to start our review. We intend to be at 
this steady state by March 2018. In the meantime, as discussed in detail elsewhere 
in this report, we continue to see real reductions in queues and waiting times 
(see pages 19 to 20).
As with the rest of the public sector, funding remains very chal enging. In 
recognition of the continued high level of applications to us, and the new ways of 
working we have adopted, we received a funding settlement which is effectively 
a standstill budget. We were unable to progress work on introducing a new case 
management system and other IT projects that were designed to find further 
performance gains. I am relieved that, going into 2016/17, we have received capital 
funding that will al ow us to press ahead with those IT projects which will further 
support improved performance. 
We have reported in previous years, and at a variety of forums, including most 
recently at the Justice Select Committee, our need to be able to access material 
held by private sector organisations and private individuals. Hitherto we have only 
had statutory access material in the public sector. And while we often do obtain 
private sector material through negotiation, this can be a protracted business 
which comes with that the additional problems of extra delay and cost. I am 
very pleased to report that the CCRC Information Act received Royal Assent on 
12th May 2016.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
This means that we will in the year ahead be able to access private sector material, 
under judicial oversight, in the same way as our col eagues in the Scottish Criminal 
Cases Review Commission.
We have had a relatively stable year in respect of staff and Commissioners. During 
the year Ian Brooks, Director of Finance and Corporate Services joined us. He is 
already making a discernible difference and along with Sally Berlin, Director of 
Casework Operations, I have in place an extremely able senior management team 
leading a body of skil ed and committed staff. We will undoubtedly face a number 
of chal enges during the coming year, not least the retirement of our three most 
experienced Commissioners. However, as an organisation, we have worked hard 
to get ourselves in a very strong position operational y. This means that we are 
well placed to continue to work towards achieving our corporate goals and doing 
what we were set up to do, investigate and review miscarriages of justice.
Karen Knel er Chief Executive

The Criminal Cases 
Review Commission 
general y in 2015/16
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is the public body created to 
investigate al eged miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland1 
and to send appropriate cases back to the appeal courts.
It was established on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal 
Justice. The Royal Commission was set up fol owing the emergence in the 1980s 
and 1990s of a series of shocking miscarriages of justice relating to high profile 
convictions such as the Guildford Four (1974); the Birmingham Six (1975) and the 
Maguire Seven (1976). These cases featured a mixture of false confessions, police 
misconduct, non-disclosure and issues about the reliability of expert forensic 
The Royal Commission’s 1994 report recommended the creation of a publicly-
funded independent body to investigate al eged miscarriages of justice when al  
avenues of appeal had failed, and to send cases back for a further appeal where 
necessary. As a result, the Criminal Cases Review Commission was established by 
the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and started work on 31st March 1997.
Our principal aims are to bring justice to the wrongly convicted by referring cases 
to the appeal courts, to identify, investigate and correct miscarriages of justice in a 
timely manner and to act independently in the interests of justice. 
Up to the end of March 2016 we had sent a total of 619 cases back to the appeal 
courts at an average rate of 33 cases a year. Indeed, the total number of referrals 
made by the Commission during 2015/16, the period or this annual report, was 
exactly 33; in the previous year it was 36.
Those referrals came from a total of 19,530 cases closed over the life of the 
Commission. This means that, at 31st March 2016, we had referred for appeal 
3.43%, or one in every 32, of the cases we have completed.
The cases we deal with come general y from the most serious end of the criminal 
spectrum – around 22% of our referrals have been for homicide convictions, 
almost 18% have been for sexual offences including rape, and 9% have been 
for robberies. The rest relate to a mixture of other mostly serious and mostly 
indictable only offences including terrorist offences.
Cases usual y come to the Commission by way of written applications from the 
people convicted of the offences in question, or from someone representing them. 
The vast majority of people use our application form which is special y designed to 
be easy to use (see link to form). During 2015/16 we received 1,480 applications. 
This is comparable with the number of applications we have received in each of 
the last three years.
The Commission considers applications in relation to convictions from the Crown 
Court and the magistrates’ courts. Around 90% of all our applications and 95% of 
all our referrals, have related to Crown Court cases. We consider applications in 
relation to conviction and sentence and can refer either for appeal.
The Commission is essential y a post appeal organisation. We were created 
to review cases where a person convicted of an offence, who has exhausted 
1  Scotland has a separate legal system and therefore has a separate CCRC see:

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
their normal rights of appeal, maintains that they have been wrongly convicted 
or incorrectly sentenced. The Act that created the Commission stipulates 
that we cannot refer a case for appeal if the applicant has their normal appeal 
rights remaining, unless there are “exceptional circumstances” that mean we 
should do so.
How we work
In order to be able to refer a case to the appeal courts, the Commission general y 
needs to be able to point to some potential y important new evidence or new legal 
argument that makes the case look sufficiently different than it did at trial or on 
appeal. The evidence or argument usual y needs to be new in the sense that it 
was not available at the time of the conviction or for the appeal. If the evidence 
in question was available but not used at the time of the trial or appeal, there wil  
need to be good reasons why it should now be treated as new.
When we come to decide whether or not we can refer a case for appeal, we are 
obliged to apply a threshold test, known as the “real possibility test”. The test was 
set out by Parliament in section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. Essential y 
it says that the Commission can only refer a case where it is satisfied there is a 
real possibility that the conviction would be quashed (or in the case of a sentence 
referral, that the sentence would be changed) if the referral was made.
Decisions about whether or not cases can be referred are always taken by one or 
more of our Commissioners. In 2015/16 there were 12 Commissioners, including 
the Chair of the Commission. Commissioners are chosen for their professional 
experience and ability to make important decisions in complicated matters. They 
are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
The Commission considers every application that arrives. What it does in each 
case depends on a number of things. If the application is from someone who has 
been convicted but still has the right to appeal in the normal way through the 
courts, we will usual y advise them that the Commission is a post-appeal body 
and that they can and should try to appeal via the relevant court. Historical y 
more than 40% of all our applications have related to such “no appeal” cases 
(see page 18). Some other applications each year are “ineligible” e.g. not 
within our jurisdiction and we cannot review those cases. In some other cases, 
applications arrive that simply do not present any issues that we can review or 
investigate. It is not unusual for applications to simply restate the points that have 
already been made, unsuccessful y, at trial and/or at appeal. In such cases, if we 
are unable to see in the case any new issues or potential new issues that we can 
realistical y review or investigate, we will explain the position to the applicant. 
Those cases that are eligible, where there has been a previous appeal, and where 
the application makes us think there are or maybe matters that need looking into, 
are al ocated to one our Case Review Managers so that a review can take place. 
Around half of all our applications each year fall into this review category.
The job of the Case Review Manager is to review the case and conduct whatever 
investigations may be necessary to decide whether or not we can refer that case 
for appeal. In doing so they can draw upon all of the Commission’s resources; they 
will obtain and consider whatever material thing we need, interview anyone we 
need to speak to and obtain independent expert evidence if necessary. In some 
complex or high profile cases a Commissioner will be assigned at an early stage of 
the review to oversee the inquiry and make investigative decisions. When, towards 
the end of the investigative stages, the time comes to decide whether there is 
any new evidence or argument that could mean there is a “real possibility”, the 
Case Review Manager may put the results of their review to a Committee of three 
Commissioners if it seems that a referral to the appeal courts is possible. If there 
is no prospect of the case being referred, the Case Review Manager may put it 
before a single Commissioner.

If the committee of three Commissioners decides that there is a real possibility 
the appeal court will quash the conviction (or in the case of a sentence referral, 
amend the sentence), the Committee will normal y refer that case and an appeal 
must be heard at the appropriate appeal court. (Crown Court cases are appealed 
at the Court of Appeal whereas magistrates’ court cases are appealed at the 
Crown Court).
If a committee, or a single Commissioner, decide that there is no prospect of 
a referral, a document explaining the position, and the reasons for it, will be 
sent to the applicant. Where necessary the applicants are invited to respond to 
that initial decision in order, essential y, to change the Commission’s mind. The 
Commissioner or committee of Commissioners wil  consider any response before 
making a final decision in the case.
Our performance in 2015/16 
We are fundamental y a caseworking organisation. The casework performance 
section of this annual report sets out in detail how the Commission has performed 
against its casework targets for things like how quickly we begin our case reviews 
and how long those reviews take and so on (see also pages 19 and 20).
That casework section details substantial improvement in a number of key areas 
compared to last year. Perhaps most important for us as an organisation and, we 
believe, for those people who apply to us, is the fact that we have significantly 
reduced the time it takes for us to begin a substantive review after an application 
has arrived.
At the end of March 2016 the wait for a review to begin (we call it the time to 
al ocation) was six months for applicants who were in prison for the offence 
concerned; one month better than it had been at the same point in the 
previous year.
We prioritise the cases of people who are in prison over those who are not. 
Consequently, for people applying to us when they are “at liberty” (either because 
they have been released, or were not jailed for the offence in question) the 
waiting time at the end of 2016 for their review to begin was 19 months compared 
to 26 months at the end of 2015. It is perhaps worth noting here that, typical y, 
around 65-70% our applicants apply while in custody.
Another key statistic that tel s us that the waiting times for applicants and the 
length of our queues are reducing is that we received 1,480 applications but 
completed 1,797 cases during 2015/16.
Further on in this report at pages 21 to 28 we discuss in detail some of the 
individual cases we have reviewed and referred during 2015/16 and some of the 
cases that have been decided by the appeal courts after we referred them. 
The Commission does not set a target for how many referrals we think should 
succeed at appeal, but we do monitor and pay attention to what happens to the 
cases that we refer. 
During 2015 /16 the appeal courts heard a total of 41 cases that reached them 
by way of a referral from the Commission. 22 cases (53.7%) were al owed, 
18 (43.9%) were dismissed and one (2.4%) was abandoned before the appeal 
The Commission’s  took place. 
casework staff 
Our Investigations and Powers
The Commission is an independent investigative body which uses its combined 
are skilled 
skil s, experience and statutory powers to investigate possible miscarriages of 
investigators in 
The Commission’s casework staff are skil ed investigators in their own right. 
They come from a wide range of professional backgrounds and include financial 
their own right.
investigators, forensic scientists, former police officers, psychologists and many 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
solicitors and barristers – in fact around half of our case review staff are legal y 
qualified. All casework staff receive ongoing training at the Commission to keep 
their skil s up to date and all can and do call upon the expertise of a legal adviser 
and a specialist investigations team. The investigations team comprises a former 
Detective Chief Superintendent, a former Detective Constable and an assistant 
investigator who are there to provide advice or to conduct interviews and specific 
investigations with or on behalf of Case Review Managers.
The Commission’s principal statutory investigative power is provided by section 
17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. Section 17 al ows the Commission to obtain 
any material it believes it might need for its work from any public body from 
MI5 to the NHS. It covers everything from the basic undisclosed case material 
in the hands of the police and the CPS, to social services records and the secret 
products of covert human intel igence sources. We usual y exercise our section 
17 powers several times in every case we review.
During 2015/16 we have watched the passage through Parliament of the CCRC 
Information Bil . It was a Private Members bil , sponsored by Mr Wil iam Wragg 
MP, which sought to extend the Commission’s powers to obtain information to 
cover material in the hands of private bodies and individuals as long as a Crown 
Court judge could be persuaded that we needed the material in question in order 
to perform our statutory role. In May 2016 the Bill passed its final legislative 
hurdle in the House of Lords. At the time of writing this report it had not yet been 
enacted, but we were already drawing up plans to responsibly exercise this new 
power. This welcome change should help to ensure that we continue to be able to 
obtain the material that we need to conduct effective case reviews.
Where necessary, the Commission can also require a police force to carry out 
investigations on its behalf. This power comes from Section 19 of the Act. Section 
Where necessary,  19 means that where it considers it necessary to do so the Commission can 
require the Chief Officer of a police force to appoint an investigating officer to 
the Commission 
work with the Commission and carry out investigations under its instructions 
and guidance. This means that the investigations can be carried out with the use 
can also require 
of police powers such as to conduct interviews under caution. The Commission 
usual y, but not always, requires the appointment of a section 19 investigating 
a police force 
officer from a force other than that involved in the case under investigation. We 
tend to use this power sparingly and usual y only when we think there may be an 
to carry out 
advantage in using police powers (such as interviewing under caution) or where an 
investigation is simply too large for a body of our size.
investigations on  Although the Commission’s main function is to consider the cases of individuals 
who apply to us, we also have a lesser known but significant role investigating on 
its behalf.
behalf of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division when the court is considering a 
first appeal or an application for leave to appeal.
The Court of Appeal can direct the Commission to investigate and report on 
matters related to ongoing appeals under section 15 of the Criminal Appeal 
Act 1995 and section 23A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. During 2015/16 
we conducted only two such investigations for the Court (see page 30). Such 
investigations have typically involved the Commission looking into allegations of 
irregularity or misconduct relating to jurors.
Our aims and the threats to them
The Commission sets itself a number of goals that it wants as an organisation to 
achieve. Those goals are set out in the Business Plans we publish each year in 
the publications section of our website at Broadly speaking, in 
our 2015/16 plan we said that we were aiming: to reduce waiting times further 
whilst maintaining the quality of our work, to encourage eligible well-prepared 
applications and discourage ineligible applications, to maintain the systems 
and staff we need to function effectively and to build and develop relationships 
with our stakeholders. Our performance against these aims has already been 

mentioned in this overview and is discussed in some detail in subsequent sections 
of this report dealing with casework, corporate and financial performance.
We also face a range of risks that may threaten whether, or how wel , we are able 
to achieve our goals. The principal risk we faced in 2015/16 was a potential loss 
of funding. This has been the key risk for some time and it is likely remain so for 
several years to come. Our ability to obtain sufficient resource and capital funding 
affects our ability to maintain our staffing levels and improve the IT environment 
that are crucial to the continued execution of our statutory function. Without 
enough money to maintain our workforce and the infrastructure on which it 
depends, we would inevitably face increases in the time it takes us to consider and 
al ocate cases for review and also to review cases to a high standard and within a 
reasonable period of time.
We suffered a setback in August 2015 when it became clear that the capital 
funding for the year was being withdrawn. We were relying on this previously 
agreed funding to complete the replacement of our obsolete casework IT system 
and a number of associated IT projects. The loss was a significant setback, not 
only because our current system is no longer supported by the manufacturer, 
but also because the new system was expected to bring some real benefits to the 
Commission. Fortunately we have now received a capital budget for 2016/17 that 
will al ow us to complete the replacement of the casework system and to progress 
a number of other important IT projects.
More general y as regards risk, the Commission take such matters very seriously 
and regularly reviews risk management through the Audit and Risk Committee 
which is chaired by one of our non-executive directors. 
The Commission is certainly not alone in the public sector in facing uncertainty 
The Commission  around its long term funding. We would very much welcome a mechanism that 
would provide a higher level of certainty, such as three-year indicative funding 
is certainly not 
settlements, to help us to plan ahead more effectively. This is a point we have 
made recently to the Justice Select Committee.
alone in the 
The Commission as a going concern
public sector in 
The Commission is an independent NDPB (Non-Departmental Public Body). 
This means that we are publicly funded by way of a cash grant – a Grant in Aid – 
facing uncertainty  from the Ministry of Justice, but we remain independent of Government and al 
other parts of the criminal justice system including the courts, the police and the 
around its long 
term funding.
For the financial year 2015/16 the cash grant we received was £5.40 mil ion – that 
is a little under five percent less than the year before when it was £5.67 mil ion. In 
2015/16 we spent our al ocated grant to within one per cent of the total which we 
view as a good outcome demonstrating sound financial management.
The Statement of Financial Position at 31st March 2016 shows a negative total 
taxpayers’ equity of £6.285 million. This reflects the inclusion of liabilities falling 
due in future years which, to the extent that they are not to be met from the 
Commission’s other sources of income, may only be met by future Grants in Aid 
from the Commission’s sponsoring department, the Ministry of Justice. This is 
because, under the normal conventions applying to parliamentary control over 
income and expenditure, such grants may not be issued in advance of need. 
Grant in Aid for 2016/17, taking into account the amounts required to meet the 
Commission’s liabilities fal ing due in that year, has already been included in the 
Ministry of Justice main estimates for that year, which have been approved by 
Parliament, and there is no reason to believe that the department’s sponsorship 
and future Parliamentary approval will not be forthcoming. During the last Triennial 
Review conducted by the Ministry of Justice in 2012/13 and, more recently the 
Justice Select Committee Twelfth Report in 2014/15 on the functions of the 
Commission, the continuation of the Commission in its current form has been 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
supported. It is considered appropriate to adopt a going concern basis for the 
preparation of these financial statements. 
Karen Kneller  
Chief Executive and Accounting Officer 
28th June 2016

Analysis of Performance
During 2015/16 we received 1,480 applications. This is reasonably consistent with 
the higher level of applications received over the last three years. 
Our challenge
We have continued to chal enge ourselves, especial y our established ways 
We have 
of working and thinking. We have worked hard to reduce the time taken from 
application to al ocation and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our 
review and decision making processes whilst maintaining the quality of our work. 
Building on the major changes made during 2014/15, at the start of 2015/16, 
to challenge 
we carried out a substantial review of our approach to casework. That led us to 
make some more fundamental changes to continue and further the necessary 
transformation to support the objectives in our Corporate Plan.
especial y our 
In April 2015, for example, we created a sub committee to bring additional 
oversight to cases that have been under review by the Commission for two years 
established ways  or more. The objective of the sub committee is to support the Board and the 
Chief Executive in their responsibilities for ensuring the timely management and 
of working and 
conclusion of long running cases. It also looks to learn lessons from those longer 
case reviews to help us to improve more general y.
In June 2015, we moved the initial consideration of reapplication cases from 
Commissioners to Case Review Managers to help us make better use of our 
precious Commissioner resource. We also further refined the arrangements, 
introduced in 2014, for dealing with No Appeal cases to enable the question of 
exceptional circumstances that might justify our involvement in the case to be 
determined more effectively. Through the changes in how we deal with these 
cases, we have managed to reduce the time it takes to make a decision on 
potential exceptional circumstances by half, enabling applicants who need to first 
approach the appeal court to do so more quickly and therefore more effectively 
and freeing up more of our time to address cases that do need our input.
In July 2015, we launched new guidance for legal representatives with a view to 
helping them to help us to provide a more effective service to our applicants. 
In August 2015, we started to take a more succinct approach towards our decision 
documents with the aim of making them, in most cases, shorter and more 
focussed so that they are clearer to applicants.
In October 2015, we put more emphasis on case review advice being provided by 
our very able Group Leaders, preserving our Commissioner resource for advice in 
the most chal enging cases and for decision-making.
In December 2015, we issued our new policy and internal guidance on reviews 
that require consideration of witness credibility checks, with a view to improving 
the consistency of our decisions as to when such checks are necessary and 
In February 2016, we provided everyone who works directly on cases with 
training, through discussion groups, to introduce and support our new guidance 
on case planning and case management techniques. The guidance itself amounts 
to a compilation of the best and most effective internal practices in this respect. 
In March 2016, we improved the clarity and consistency of our communications 
with applicants to help them ensure that we have a thorough understanding of the 
key issues in the case from the start. We also commenced new arrangements for 
updating applicants during the course of our reviews, to help us to communicate 
better with applicants and to be more consistent in this respect. In addition, we 
refined our case committee process with a view to making that more focussed and 
reducing some of the administrative delays.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Throughout, we have been continuing to look for opportunities to make more 
effective use of technology, where appropriate, to help us to work more flexibly 
and efficiently.
Over the course of the year, we have reduced maximum waiting times for 
al ocation of custody cases from 16 months (although the majority were waiting 
eight months) to six months; and of liberty cases from 26 months to 19 months. 
We have increased case closures by 10% (compared with last year), whilst 
continuing to find and make referrals to the appeal courts. 
With a slight reduction to human resource levels in casework, we have managed 
to complete 1,797 case reviews. This compares with 1,632 cases closed in 2014/15 
and 1,131 cases closed in 2013/14. 
We have reduced the number of cases awaiting al ocation from 593 at the end 
We have reduced  of March 2015 to 397 at the end of March 2016. We have had another extremely 
productive year, but we remain committed to reducing the time that applicants 
the number of 
spend waiting for us to begin our review of their case and for us then to make a 
decision at the end of our review. 
cases awaiting 
Casework resources
al ocation from 
We are again relieved to have received what is virtual y a ‘stand stil ’ budget 
for 2015/16 and 2016/17, fol owing our submissions to the Ministry of Justice 
593 at the end 
of a business case in light of the established high level of applications and the 
continuing process changes that we have been making to help us to work more 
of March 2015 to  efficiently. Over the course of 2015/16, our Case Review Manager resource has 
decreased slightly and we have increased our Casework Administrator resource 
397 at the end of  a little. Commissioner and specialist support resource has remained almost 
March 2016. 
We were fortunate to have been able during 2015/16 to draw upon the 
considerable expertise of a number staff from the Public Defenders Service 
(PDS). We reached an agreement with the PDS whereby we were able not only to 
second two experienced barristers to work for a period on site at the Commission 
advising on and assisting with casework, but also to call upon and instruct PDS 
staff in relation to some specific pieces of work. We mention it here to record 
our gratitude and for the significant contribution it made to our casework output 
during the year.
No appeal cases
Applications to the Commission should not be seen, or used, as a mechanism by 
which applicants can by-pass conventional appeal processes.
For the last three years, over 40% all new applications received by the 
Commission were “No Appeal” cases; these are applications where there has 
been no previous appeal and no previous application for leave to appeal. 
In No Appeal cases, the Commission can only refer the case for appeal if, in 
addition to the test that applies to every case, we find that there are exceptional 
circumstances for doing so. Where no exceptional circumstances are suggested 
by the applicant, and where none are apparent to the Commission, the applicant is 
advised to seek an appeal in the conventional way.
We have made further adjustments to the major change that we introduced in 
October 2014 to how we process and consider No Appeal cases to enable us to 
deal with the vast majority of these cases where there are no potential exceptional 
circumstances as efficiently as possible. That means that we inform No Appeal 
applicants more quickly of their most appropriate route to appeal and can focus 
more of our resources on cases where the applicant has no alternative avenue. 
The continued high proportion of No Appeal cases continues to concern us, as 
it detracts from our ability to deal more quickly with those who no longer have a 
right of appeal. 

Not only has everyone worked extremely hard this year, but, as discussed 
above, we have also made many changes to how we do things, all with a view to 
achieving an appropriate balance to make sure our case reviews are as detailed 
and thorough as they need to be and that they do not take any longer than is 
As a result, from March 2015 to March 2016 we have managed to reduce 
maximum waiting times to allocation: 
z From seven months to six months for custody cases.
z From 26 months to 19 months for liberty cases.
We have met the interim milestones that we set for ourselves for the reduction 
of maximum waiting times and we remain on track to achieve our Corporate Plan 
objective to have done away altogether with the waiting times for both custody 
and liberty cases by the end of March 2018. 
A proportion of our reviews involve complex cases and those cannot properly be 
undertaken quickly. Many months of painstaking work can be involved, including 
examining relevant files, instructing experts, interviewing applicants or witnesses 
and forensic testing. We are often heavily reliant on being supplied with the 
necessary information by organisations and individuals. Many of them, especially 
the public bodies such as the police, courts and CPS, continue to be under 
substantial resource pressure themselves. Even the largest and most complex 
cases ultimately need to be concluded and so we introduced the Long Running 
Cases sub committee, which is bringing additional scrutiny to timeliness in cases 
that take us more than 2 years at review stage. 
The Commission’s casework performance is monitored using a set of Key 
Performance Indicators, or KPIs. The KPIs are discussed below and are set out on 
pages 84 to 87 of this report.
Time from receipt to allocation
We appreciate how important it is for applicants to know that we are addressing 
the issues in their case. KPI 1 monitors the average time taken for an application to 
be al ocated to a CRM so that a case review can begin. We prioritise applications 
from people in custody over those from people who are at liberty; during 2015/16, 
67% of applications which merited a review were from people in custody and 
33% from people at liberty.
Our interim target for KPI 1 in 2015/16 was to al ocate custody cases in an average 
of less than 26 weeks from receipt of application. Where the applicant is at liberty, 
we aim for an average of less than 78 weeks. In 2015/16, the actual average time 
was 19 weeks for custody cases and 55 weeks for liberty cases.
Duration of review
We aim to review cases with both speed and thoroughness. KPI 2A monitors the 
We aim to review  average time taken for an application to be reviewed. In 2015/2016, the time taken 
for review cases to reach the point where an initial decision is issued was 27.14 
cases with 
weeks, against our KPI 2 target of 28 weeks of being al ocated to a CRM.
both speed and 
Time to decision from application 
We recognise that the time taken at the various ‘stages’ of our processes 
perhaps matter less than the overall time from application to final decision, 
so we introduced KPI 2B to measure the average, for No Appeal, Custody and 
Liberty cases.
For No Appeal cases, our KPI target is 15 weeks. In 2015/16, the time taken was 
8.32 weeks. For Custody cases, the target is 56 weeks. In 2015/16, the time taken 
was 55.69 weeks. For Liberty cases, the target 88 weeks. In 2015/16, the time 
taken was 84.87 weeks.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Caseflow balance
KPI 3 shows how the overall number of cases completed in a year compares with 
the number of applications received. If the number of cases received is greater 
than the number dealt with in a year, queues and waiting times may well increase; 
if the number is smal er they may well decrease. During 2015/16 we completed 
317 more cases than we received. For comparison, in 2014/15 we completed 33 
more cases than we received, in 2013/14 we completed 339 fewer cases than 
we received and in 2012/13 we completed 351 fewer than we received. As at 31st 
March 2016, we were working on 1,150 cases. 
In 2015/16 the Commission referred 33 cases to the appeal courts. This means 
In 2015/16 the 
that we referred 1.8% of the 1,797 cases concluded this year. In the previous 
year the referral rate 2.2%, in 2013/14 2.7%, in 2012/13 1.6%, and in 2011/12 it 
was 2.5%. In 2009/10 when we also referred 31 cases, the number represented a 
referral rate of 3.5%. The Commission’s long-term referral rate stands at 3.43%.
referred 33 cases  One of the referred matters was “multi-handed”, involving three applicants 
(co-defendants), referred on the same basis having had their cases reviewed 
to the appeal 
together by the Commission. Nine of the referrals involved convictions for 
offences relating to the applicants’ entry to the UK, such as having a false passport 
or no passport at al , where the applicant was a refugee.
The Commission has always reported its referral rate as a percentage of the 
total number of cases closed. However, it is perhaps worth providing here some 
information about what the calculation involves. The total number of cases closed 
includes every application received regardless of whether it comes under the 
statutory remit defined for the Commission by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. This 
means that the total cases figure includes applications relating to civil matters or 
other proceedings outside of our jurisdiction, cases where applicants have appeals 
pending and No Appeal cases where there are no exceptional circumstances 
(discussed above) that the Commission could not refer in any event. If cases 
of this type were removed from the calculation, along with reapplications that 
raise no new grounds, the Commission’s long-term referral rate would stand at 
something close to seven per cent.
Prosecutions of refugees and asylum seekers
In our last four annual reports, we spoke of our having identified a series of cases 
where refugees or asylum seekers have been prosecuted for offences relating 
to their entry to the UK, such as having a false passport or no passport at al . 
International law prohibits such prosecutions where people are fleeing persecution 
and UK law provides defences designed to protect people in this position. We have 
referred 36 of these types of cases since 2011. We invested resources in liaising 
with relevant organisations in an attempt to prevent further unsafe convictions of 
that type from occurring in the future. Excepting a very few of our cases which are 
for very recent convictions our impression is that the tide may have begun to turn. 
See also page 27.
Special Demonstration Squad
In 2014/15 we reported that we had been involved in Mark El ison QC’s review, 
for the Home Secretary, into cases where the activity of the Metropolitan Police 
Special Demonstration Squad may have caused miscarriages of justice. The 
Inquiry into Undercover Policing, led by Lord Justice Pitchford opened in July 2015. 
We watch with interest and anticipation. 
Post Office ‘Horizon Computer’ cases
Last year, we reported that in March 2015 we received 15 applications from 
former Postmasters/mistresses convicted of offences such as theft and false 
accounting having been prosecuted by the Post Office. The theme relevant to 

those applications is a suggestion that difficulties with the ‘Horizon’ computer 
system and/or with the training and support provided in using the system were 
the cause of the facts that led to the convictions. To date, we have received a total 
of 23 applications of this type and we are taking a co-ordinated approach to those 
Cases referred for appeal during 2015/16
During the year, the Commission referred 33 cases to the appeal courts. This 
During the year, 
section provides analysis and comment on some of those cases.
the Commission 
Mr Dorling, a former prison officer, was convicted in 2006 of the murder of C, a 
referred 33 cases  serving, but suspended, prison officer. It was the prosecution case that Mr Dorling 
had confessed to an associate and to his former girlfriend. 
to the appeal 
Since Mr Dorling’s trial fresh evidence has emerged that goes to the credibility of 
significant prosecution witnesses. The evidence consists of material available at 
the time of trial but not disclosed to the defence as well as some other evidence 
which has emerged since the trial. The Commission’s committee decided to refer 
the case on the basis that the credibility of one of the confession witnesses (and of 
the two corroborating witnesses) was irreparably damaged to the extent that the 
prosecution in separate but associated proceedings acknowledged that he could 
no longer be regarded as a credible witness. 
Taking account of all of the remaining evidence against Mr Dorling, and the 
approach taken by the prosecution to the same key witnesses in those later 
proceedings, the committee decided there was a real possibility that the Court of 
Appeal would find the conviction unsafe.
This was a case involving a joint enterprise murder. Our referral was again based 
on the non-disclosure of information that could be considered to undermine the 
credibility of important prosecution witnesses.
Evidence of Mr Dunn’s participation in the murder had come from the witness 
MV. In later, connected proceedings that also featured MV, previously undisclosed 
material came to light that led the Court of Appeal to express serious doubts about 
MV’s credibility and to strongly criticise prosecuting counsel in relation to what 
the Court described as a ‘lamentable failure’ in the prosecutor’s duty regarding key 
disclosure decisions. 
The Committee concluded that the evidence suggesting MV had lied in a criminal 
trial was of a different order to other material previously deployed to undermine 
MV’s credibility, and therefore raised a real possibility that the Court would quash 
Mr Dunn’s conviction.
On 9th November 2000 at Teesside Crown Court, Mr Embleton, and two others, 
H and G, were all unanimously convicted of the joint enterprise murder of a 
Mr. Sharif.
The prosecution al eged that the defendants kil ed Mr. Sharif during the course 
of a burglary that went wrong. G offered a plea to manslaughter; H gave various 
accounts (including outright denial of presence) but consistently refuted any 
participation in the actual assault against Mr. Sharif; Mr. Embleton raised an alibi 
defence saying he had spent the night with his then girlfriend at her home.
Key evidence against Mr. Embleton amounted to: a) seven fibres found on items of 
his clothing which were determined to be a match for the deceased’s jumper and 
said to provide ‘moderate’ support for the contention that there had been direct 
contact between them; b) evidence from a further witness that Mr. Embleton had 
visited her home with an injured hand on the day, and at the time, of the attack, 
and that he had said his injury was caused by hitting someone; and c) evidence 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
from co-defendant H who placed Mr. Embleton at the scene, although he also 
exonerated him of taking part in the actual assault.
The Commission found, among the sensitive police material we had obtained 
for our review, information relevant to the Mr Embleton’s defence that was 
not disclosed to his representatives, and which in our view gave rise to a real 
possibility that the Court of Appeal will consider the conviction unsafe.
Due to the nature of the material, it was supplied to the Court in a confidential 
annex which has not been supplied to Mr Embleton.
Jeanette Burke
In July 2006, at Liverpool Crown Court, Jeanette Burke was convicted of two 
The investigation  counts of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. Between 2004 and 2005, a lengthy 
investigation, cal ed Operation Lima, was conducted by Her Majesty’s Customs 
involved the 
and Excise (HMCE) and Merseyside Police, into the activities of an organised 
group suspected of conspiring to supply cocaine and heroin imported into the UK. 
The investigation involved the surveil ance of the al eged conspirators, evidence of 
meetings between them and their travels abroad, analysis of numerous telephone 
of the al eged 
cal s made between them, and drugs being seized on arrival in the UK. 
Subsequently, several people were prosecuted for conspiracy to supply class 
A drugs. The prosecution said Ms Burke was, throughout the period of the 
evidence of 
investigation, heavily involved with other conspirators and in particular with KB 
and CB, who had both since admitted their involvement by pleading guilty. 
The Commission referred the conviction because it considered that a failure to 
disclose to Ms Burke’s defence the bases of plea entered by CB and KB, could 
between them 
arguably have undermined the safety of her conviction.
and their travels 
In reviewing this case the Commission noted that there does not appear to be 
much by way of direct guidance on the issue of disclosure of a basis of plea by 
abroad, analysis 
one accused to any co-accused (save, perhaps, in fraud cases). We have written to 
the CPS raising this specific issue. 
of numerous 
All four of these referrals turn on failures of the procedures meant to govern 
the disclosure of information that should have been revealed on the basis that 
telephone cal s 
it potential y undermined the prosecution’s case or assisted the defence case. 
Failings in the disclosure process can take a number of forms such as the failure of 
made between 
the prosecution team (the police, the CPS and trial counsel together) to disclose 
to the defence all material it should and the failure of the police to disclose to 
them, and drugs 
the CPS relevant material in its possession so that the prosecuting lawyers can 
make the right decisions about what ought to be revealed (we have already seen 
being seized on 
an example of this in a referral made in early 2016/17 in the case of Wang Yam.) 
The origin of non-disclosure can be innocent, such as when the true significance 
arrival in the UK.  of a trivial-seeming but potentialy important point is simply missed, or it can be 
malign such as when a matter is deliberately suppressed precisely because its 
potential impact is recognised and understood.
Matters relating to disclosure have played a part in dozens of referrals over the 
life of the Commission and this year’s casework reminds us that the issue is ever 
present. The Commission Chair has, in light of the matters discussed in this report, 
and of the ongoing issues regarding non-disclosure, written to the Director of 
Public Prosecutions and the relevant subject lead at the National Police Chiefs’ 
Council to point out the issues raised by these cases and to make some point 
more generally in relation to disclosure.
Kerry Holden
Kerry Holden pleaded not guilty to murder when she stood trial for murder at 
Nottingham Crown Court. 
The prosecution case was that Ms Holden had stabbed Luke Moran once in the 
chest fol owing an argument in the early hours of Sunday 21st August 2011 after 
a party in the Clifton area of the city.

There were no witnesses to the stabbing and there was no forensic evidence 
connecting Ms Holden to the attack. She convicted of murder by a majority 
verdict on 8th March 2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum 
term of 18 years. 
When her appeal was dismissed in June 2013, she applied to the Commission for 
a review of her case. We decided to refer Ms Holden’s murder conviction to the 
Court of Appeal because of new evidence relating to an alternative suspect, who 
came forward during the course of our review, and which raises a real possibility 
the Court wil  quash the conviction.
Cases decided by the Courts in 2015/16
A total of 41 appeals were heard by the appeal courts fol owing referral by the 
A total of 
Commission in 2015/16. Of those 21 (51.2 %) appeals were al owed, 19 (46.3%) 
were upheld and one (2.4%) was abandoned by the appel ant before the case 
41 appeals 
was heard.
were heard 
Carl Butler
Carl Butler was convicted of rape on 21st May 1998 at Sheffield Crown Court. 
by the appeal 
He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of six years. A life 
sentence was passed because Mr Butler had previous convictions for rape and 
courts following 
indecent assault.
Mr Butler’s defence at trial was that sex had taken place but that it had been 
referral by the 
consensual. The Commission carried out background checks which uncovered 
material, belonging to South Yorkshire Police and Doncaster Social Services, 
Commission in 
which the Committee considered gave rise to the fol owing concerns regarding the 
complainant’s credibility:
We found that, prior to the trial in 1998, the complainant had made a 
substantial number of sexual allegations against different men. Some 
al egations were formal y retracted and other al egations were believed to be 
untrue, or were viewed as unsubstantiated. 
Prior to trial in 1998, there were also a number of findings by Police and 
Social Services that the complainant had difficulty distinguishing between 
fact and fantasy. It was clear from the relevant records that a number of 
sexual al egations were not believed by the professionals who dealt with the 
complainant. We did not find any evidence that these pre-1998 matters were 
disclosed at trial. 
We also found that after Mr Butler’s trial in 1998, the complainant has 
approached the police with further sexual al egations and that none of those 
al egations has been proceeded with, and at least some of the al egations were 
not believed by the police.
The Committee considered that this new information was capable of significantly 
undermining the credibility and reliability of the complainant and therefore gave 
rise to a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would overturn Mr Butler’s 
On the 20th May 2015, the Court upheld the conviction. Several important themes 
emerged from the judgment. 
The Court stressed that this kind of case requires “an appreciation of the way in 
which the authorities then (i.e. late 1980s and mid 1990s) approached al egations 
of sexual abuse”. It is “also important to examine police and social services records 
from 25 years ago with an eye on the very different approach to victims of sexual 
abuse and the likely impact on their lives”. The point essential y is that, back then, 
genuine complaints were often not believed.
The Court also expressed doubts the opinions expressed at that time by 
professionals (including police officers, social workers and doctors) that the 
complainant had problems distinguishing fact and fantasy: the opinion of one 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
doctor was referred to as “clearly unsupportable”. But the Court also said: “none 
of this matters, because the opinion of a social worker, of a police officer or of 
a doctor as to the truthfulness of a complainant is not admissible as a basis for 
chal enging the veracity of this complainant…”, “…the views of the police at the 
time about the capacity of [the complainant] truthful y to report al egations of 
sexual abuse are irrelevant…” 
There were a number of documented retractions from the victim in this case. 
The Court considered that, notwithstanding the contemporaneous professional 
opinions, the retractions may have been connected with her vulnerability/family 
pressures rather than to the truthfulness of the al egations.
The Court states: “the CCRC was absolutely right to investigate the history of [the 
complainant] and to analyse her background”. However, the Court appears to have 
its doubts about whether we should have referred the case on the basis of what 
we found. 
In all of the circumstances it can be argued that the Commission was right, given 
the information uncovered during the course of the investigations, to refer the 
case to the Court of Appeal. Going forward, however, we can now be under 
no il usion about the Court’s approach to dealing with the credibility of the 
complainant. This judgment clearly represents a hardening of attitudes towards the 
criticism of victims and complainants.
A case must be reviewed in a wider context and the Commission must clearly have 
regard to the historical frame of reference to such matters as the observations of 
professionals involved in the case. The Court’s approach in Butler suggests that, 
before concluding there is real possibility that a conviction might be quashed, 
appropriate thought must be given to the prevailing attitudes at the time of the 
original offence, and to what progress has since been made in relevant areas. This 
certainly provides the Commission with food for thought.
The reliability and credibility of witnesses is fundamental to the fairness of the 
The reliability 
trial process and central to the safety of convictions. Since it was created, the 
Commission has referred a significant number of cases for appeal on the basis of 
and credibility 
new evidence relating to the reliability or credibility of witness evidence which in 
our view raised, or helped to raise, a real possibility that the appeal court would 
of witnesses is 
quash the conviction in that case. While many of those referrals have resulted in 
convictions being quashed, others have not. 
fundamental to 
 We are well aware that the investigation of witness reliability and credibility is 
a sensitive matter – particularly when the witness concerned is also the victim 
the fairness of 
of the offence in question and even more so when the offence is of a sexual 
nature. We are always mindful of the impact that such inquiries can have on the 
the trial process 
witnesses concerned and we are as careful as we can be to minimise that impact. 
Notwithstanding the sensitivities involved, it remains the case that such issues can 
and central to 
clearly be highly relevant in our work investigating alleged wrongful convictions. It 
therefore remains likely that there will be occasions when, in our judgment, such 
the safety of 
issues mean that we must refer a case for appeal. As has always been the case, 
we will only ever do so after careful consideration of the facts specific to each 
individual case.
Chedwyn Evans
The Commission’s referral of the rape conviction of the footbal er Chedwyn Evans 
has been the subject of significant media interest during 2015/16. Indeed, the case 
has arguably received more widespread media attention than any other case in the 
Commission’s history. 
Having investigated the case in some detail, the Commission concluded that there 
was fresh evidence which raised a real possibility that the Court might quash 
Mr Evans’ conviction.
The Court heard the appeal between 22nd and 23rd March 2016. On 21st April, it 
handed down its judgment quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial. At the 

time of writing this report, the retrial is pending, reporting restrictions apply and it 
is therefore not appropriate for us to provide any commentary on the case in this 
Annual Report.
Hillman and Gowans
On 24th August 2001, Mr Gowans and Mr Hil man were convicted of the murder 
of Vytautas Jelinskas. These convictions fol owed from the earlier convictions 
of Messrs Hil man and Gowans for causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Jelinskas 
during a robbery in January 2000.
On 14th August 2000, both men had pleaded guilty to robbery but not guilty to 
causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Jelinskas during the course of the robbery. 
After a trial on 16th August 2000 they were convicted of causing grievous 
bodily harm.
On 19th August 2000, Mr Jelinskas died as result of septicaemia contracted whilst 
in hospital having treatment for his injuries. Messrs Hil man and Gowans were 
then charged with and convicted of Mr Jelinskas’ murder.
The Commission referred the case after being alerted by the Attorney General 
to the fact that, contrary to the legal requirement governing procedure in such 
circumstances, the necessary consent to prosecute for murder had not been 
obtained from the Attorney General under the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) 
Act 1996.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions, and ordered a retrial. 
The Attorney 
The Attorney General’s consent was obtained by the Crown on 17th March 2015, 
and both Hil man and Gowans were again convicted of murder in December 2015.
General’s consent  We have not identified a previous murder case where the grounds of appeal were 
was obtained by 
a failure to obtain the Attorney General’s consent under the Law Reform (Year and 
a Day Rule) Act 1996.2 We will keep a close eye on any future cases of this kind, 
the Crown on 
and try ensure that, if necessary, any lessons are passed on to the relevant bodies 
to prevent such a situation from arising again.
17th March 2015,  Q
and both Hil man  The Commission deals with a number of cases of a very sensitive nature where 
we can say very little about the circumstances. We do aim to be as transparent as 
and Gowans were  is reasonably possible. However, given what we do, and given the nature of some 
of the information and material we handle, it is sometimes necessary to a make 
again convicted 
referrals to the appeal courts while disclosing the most sensitive facts only to the 
appeal court itself. 
of murder in 
One such case in 2015/16 was that of Q. The case concerned credit for assistance 
given to the authorities. The matter had already been raised at trial, through 
December 2015.
private correspondence to the judge known as a “text”. However, the assistance 
continued after conviction but before sentence, and then also post sentence. 
The Commission referred Q’s sentence to the Court of Appeal on the basis 
the substantial assistance provided and relying partly on the fifth principle in 
R v A and B [1991] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 52 which applies when the true benefit of the 
assistance being given is not appreciated at the time of sentence. 
At the hearing the Court referred to the recent judgment of R v ZTR [2015] EWCA 
Crim 1427 which concerns the Court being unable to give credit for any assistance 
given post sentence and in which it is made clear that it is not the Court’s function 
to act as a court of review and reward for defendants’ good behaviour during 
In Q’s case, the Court appeared to reach something of a compromise, and dealt 
with the assistance given pre sentence alone and while Q’s tariff was reduced, his 
substantive sentence remained in place.
2  Convictions have been quashed in relation to other offences, (see the discussion around 
R v Angel [1968] 1 W.L.R 669 and R v Pearce (1981) 72 Cr. App. R 295 in last year’s report).

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
The Court did observe that it was open to Q to apply directly to the Secretary of 
State to consider the assistance made fol owing sentence. It went on to say that 
“assuming such an invitation is made for further consideration by the Secretary of 
State, we encourage close consideration of the matter by the Secretary of State 
based on our assessment of the value of the material provided post sentence”. 
This case il ustrates some of the complex and sensitive issues which must be 
considered by the Commission during the course of this type of review. The door 
does not appear to have been completely closed on Q, and the Commission wil  
certainly take note of the Court’s approach for future reviews. We await with 
interest any further developments in Q’s case.
Northern Ireland cases
Myles O’Hagan was convicted by a trial Judge on 24th May 1974 at the Belfast 
City Commission of causing an explosion contrary to section 2 of the Explosive 
Substance Act 1883. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.
This case was one of the ‘youth confession’ cases dealt with by the Commission 
and discussed at some length in earlier reports. These cases are a subset of the 
Troubles-related cases from Northern Ireland, and involving young defendants; 
Mr O’Hagan was 15 at the time of conviction.
We referred the conviction in October 2015 and, in October 2015, the conviction 
The judgment 
was upheld by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal (NICA). The judgment in this 
case appears to us to narrow the circumstances in which the NICA will consider a 
in this case 
youth confession case unsafe.
appears to us 
The Court was not interested in the various matters because they were common 
place in 1973; firstly that the trial judge was unaware that although there was 
to narrow the 
an appropriate adult present when the confession was signed, the interviewing 
officers actual y obtained the confession at an interview without the presence 
circumstances in  of an appropriate adult. Secondly, that the two suspects were tried separately, 
even though this meant that the Court would have been unaware of discrepancies 
which the NICA 
between the confessions and the cases. 
The Court focused on the principles set out in the case of R v Pol ock [2004] 
will consider a 
NICA 34:
The Court of Appeal should concentrate on the single and simple 
youth confession 
question ‘does it think that the verdict is unsafe’.
case unsafe.
2.  This exercise does not involve trying the case again. Rather it requires 
the court, where conviction has fol owed trial and no fresh evidence 
has been introduced on the appeal, to examine the evidence given at 
trial and to gauge the safety of the verdict against that background.
3.  The court should eschew speculation as to what may have influenced 
the jury to its verdict.
4.  The Court of Appeal must be persuaded that the verdict is unsafe but 
if, having considered the evidence, the court has a significant sense 
of unease about the correctness of the verdict based on a reasoned 
analysis of the evidence, it should al ow the appeal.
Whilst the Court accepted the individual arguments presented by the Commission, 
it did not feel that either individual y or cumulatively they created any sense of 
unease about the reliability of the admissions and the safety of the verdict.
James Goodall was convicted fol owing an explosion on 21st March 1977 at the 
Academy Shirt Factory, Belfast. The prosecution case was that he was one of 
three people involved and it was he who had carried the bomb into the factory.

He was taken to Castlereagh holding centre and there interviewed for seven hours 
and 55 minutes (in five interviews over three days). He admitted his involvement 
during the second of those interviews.
At his trial Mr Goodall questioned the veracity of the statement of admission to 
the police officers he had purportedly signed, and suggested the signatures were 
not his.
It is reported in a contemporary newspaper article that information was before the 
court that Mr Goodall who was aged 24 years at the time of his trial had a mental 
age of 11 years. However, MacDermott J found Mr Goodall “shrewd and cunning, 
guileful and quick witted”. The Commission unfortunately cannot ascertain 
whether, or in what guise, this information was before the court at trial.
Mr Goodal ’s application for a review of his conviction was received at the CCRC 
on 9th September 2009. 
It was submitted that firstly, the case of R v Boyle was relevant to the application 
in the context of the reliability of the written statement of admission. Mr Boyle’s 
conviction was referred by the Commission on the basis that ESDA testing had 
questioned the veracity of the written interviews by police officers.
Furthermore, in the light of the Court’s decision in R v Brown and others that any 
Court of Appeal sitting today would in all likelihood conclude that any al eged 
admissions would never be admitted as evidence at a voir dire hearing due to the 
oppressive conditions in which they were said to have been obtained. Reference 
was also made to Mr Goodal ’s mental state and vulnerability at the time of his 
detention and all these circumstances indicate that the admissions had been 
obtained in circumstances which do not comply with contemporary standards 
of fairness. 
The Commission has obtained the opinion of Professor John Taylor, a Consultant 
Clinical Psychologist and Psychological Services Lead at Northumberland, Tyne 
and Wear NHS Foundation Trust. Professor Taylor’s conclusions are that given 
Mr Goodal ’s intel ectual capacity his ability to have dealt with police interviews 
without the services of an appropriate adult to advise him would have been limited 
and that the resulting statement is possibly unreliable.
The Commission also submitted the original statement recorded from Mr Goodal  
for expert ESDA testing. The results suggested that the statements may not stand 
up to the scrutiny of the court.
A committee of three Commissioners considered Mr Goodal ’s case and 
concluded that there is a real possibility in the light of the fresh evidence from 
both experts that the Court would no longer consider Mr Goodal ’s conviction 
as safe.
Asylum and Immigration cases
In recent years, a significant proportion of the Commission’s referrals to the 
appel ate courts have been ‘asylum and immigration cases’. Whilst the background 
can be found in previous annual reports, the recent judgement in the Commission 
referral of R v YY and Nori [2016] EWCA Crim18 represents something of a sea 
YY (who was granted anonymity by the Court of Appeal) and Ayad Mohammed 
Nori are two of only three such Commission cases where the appeal has 
been dismissed. The Court’s judgment not only sets out the reasons why their 
convictions were not quashed, but it also makes clear that the issues raised by 
such cases are now properly understood and the method of identifying bona 
fide examples is properly appreciated. This is thanks largely to the Commission’s 
numerous referrals, and a number of similar cases reaching the courts directly 
through the work of a handful of solicitors’ firms.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
As a result the Court’s own Criminal Appeal Office can now deal with cases where 
As a result the 
the individuals concerned still have their appeal rights intact. This then leaves 
the Commission free to focus on those cases where only it can help because 
Court’s own 
conventional appeal rights have been exhausted; where appeal rights remain but 
where there are exceptional circumstances that mean the Commission should 
Criminal Appeal 
review the case anyway, or, in the case of convictions fol owing an unequivocal 
guilty plea in the magistrates’ court, where appeal rights do not exist at al .
Office can 
The change is something that the Commission has anticipated for some time. It is 
now deal with 
to be welcomed as it shows that the understanding of the issues raised by these 
cases, and the status of those that succeed at appeal as concerning wrongful 
cases where 
convictions, is now well established.
Jogee and joint enterprise
the individuals 
As noted elsewhere in this report, the judgement in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 has 
concerned stil  
attracted a significant amount of publicity, and not just within the legal press. It is 
worth noting that Ameen Jogee was an applicant to the Commission, but withdrew 
have their appeal  his application when his case was listed before the Supreme Court.
The ruling relates to an appeal by Ameen Hassan Jogee, who is serving a sentence 
rights intact.
of life imprisonment. Jogee was convicted of murder even though it was his friend, 
Mohammed Adnam Hirsi, who kil ed their victim, Paul Fyfe.
The legal issue concerned the mental element of intent which must be proved 
when a defendant is accused of being a secondary party to a crime. The question 
of law was whether the common law took a wrong turning in two cases, Chan 
Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] 1 AC 168 and R v Powell and English [1999] 1 AC 1. 
It is not proposed to analyse the various arguments and opinions within this 
report, but two Commissioners, Sharon Persaud and Celia Hughes have written 
an article, published in the Law Society Gazette, (link) outlining what the decision 
means in relation to applications to, and potential referrals by, the Commission.
There has been a significant amount of debate about the position fol owing 
Jogee and the Commission has received a number of applications based on the 
decision. It must be emphasised that the Jogee decision does not mean that al  
joint enterprise convictions are unsafe, as some applicants argue. Shortly after 
the judgment was issued, the Commission met representatives of the organisation 
Jengba (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association) to discuss the potential impact 
of the case.
The decision on whether or not to refer a particular case will depend on the 
facts of each individual case. The Commission will need to establish whether 
the clarification of the law in Jogee is engaged and if it impacts upon the safety of 
the conviction. 
If there is an impact on the safety of the conviction, we will consider whether 
there has been a ‘substantial injustice’.
The Commission employs a predictive test, and at the time of writing, the Court 
of Appeal has not considered any application to it based on Jogee. At present, the 
Commission is considering several cases with a view to referring those that meet 
the real possibility test on the basis of the Jogee judgement, having particular 
regard to paragraph 100. No doubt the position will become clearer over the 
course of the next 12 months and the Commission looks forward to being at the 
forefront of this development in the law.
The prioritisation of Commission reviews
During the last year, fol owing prioritisation decision in two high profile cases – 
those of Chedwyn Evans and Alexander Blackman – there has been some public 
discussion regarding the Commission’s system for the prioritisation of cases for 
review. Our policy on the prioritisation of cases can be found on the Commission’s and is referred to below.

The Commission has devised a system for ordering cases and determining 
whether or not specific cases should be given priority. Priority may be automatic 
or discretionary. There are three levels of priority.
Level 1 priority will be al ocated as soon as resources permit, having regard 
to the degree of urgency. The Commission aims to al ocate all level 1 cases 
within a maximum of 3 months from the decision to prioritise.
Level 2 priority will be given when applicants are in custody. Prioritisation 
will be automatic on an applicant’s first application, and discretionary for 
subsequent applications. Applicants at liberty may also be given level 
2 priority if the conviction has an exceptional y adverse impact on the 
convicted person or other individuals (discretionary). An example may be the 
fact that an applicant is at liberty but subject to a life licence. Level 2 cases 
aim to be al ocated for review within 8 months of receipt.
Level 3 priority will be given to all other cases.
When considering the merits of an application for priority, the Commission wil  
have regard to a number of factors, including the preservation of evidence, 
operational effectiveness and the impact of the delay on the criminal justice 
system. The health of the applicant where there is a concern that the applicant 
may die before the case is dealt with is also a factor. 
The public profile of an applicant, or the level of public support for an applicant, 
are not factors that the Commission will usual y take into account when 
responding to a request for prioritisation.
Whilst most decisions on priority are made fol owing specific representations 
on the matter from the applicant, the Commission will prioritise cases without 
representations from the applicant should it be appropriate. Equal y, where an 
application for priority is rejected on the basis of the applicant’s submissions, the 
The Commission  Commission may still grant priority but for different reasons to those suggested by 
the applicant.
cannot provide 
Persistent Applicants
an efficient 
As with all publicly funded bodies, the Commission has finite resources. Whilst 
service to other 
the Commission gives careful consideration to every applicant that applies for a 
review, it is clear that time should not be taken up continuing in correspondence 
applicants if 
with applicants on the same subject with no new relevant points raised and when 
nothing that can useful y be said in reply. The Commission cannot provide an 
its resources 
efficient service to other applicants if its resources are diverted to applicants 
whose cases have been considered but turned down and who continue to make 
are diverted to 
contact without raising plausible fresh grounds.
If an applicant continues to submit re-applications and does not raise anything 
applicants whose  new that is relevant, the Director of Casework Operations will make a decision not 
to accept any further re-applications from that applicant or require that further 
cases have been  applications are submitted through a legal representative who must identify 
compel ing and substantial grounds to justify acceptance of the application.
considered but 
This approach was met with approval in the case of R(on the application of Steele) 
v CCRC [2015] EWHC 3724 (Admin). Michael Steele had applied for a judicial 
turned down and  review of the Commission’s decision not to accept his case for a further review, 
and also our decision not to accept any further re-applications to review his case 
who continue 
unless submitted through a legal representative. 
to make contact 
In dismissing his application, Dove J commented that in his judgement there is 
nothing wrong in principle with the Commission concluding in a particular case, 
without raising 
where there have been iterative applications on the same basis, that there should 
be no further applications unless a legal advisor makes clear that the application 
plausible fresh 
proceeds on the basis of new and compel ing grounds of substance. The measure 
does not deprive the applicant of the opportunity to make further applications, 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
and the Commission is entitled to reach such a decision in the light of the need for 
it to careful y husband its own resources.
Judicial Reviews
Applications for judicial review are handled by the Administrative Court sitting 
Applications for 
at the Royal Courts of Justice in London and in a few regional court centres. 
Fol owing a successful judicial review of a decision taken by the Commission, the 
judicial review are  Administrative Court can require us to revisit the decision in question. 
During the year 2015/16 the Commission was the subject of 21 such chal enges. 
handled by the 
In 19 cases, correspondence has been exchanged under the pre-action protocol 
for judicial review. In two cases the applicants chose not to fol ow the pre-action 
protocol and opted instead to issues claims directly.
Court sitting at 
Ten of the 19 cases that used the pre-action protocol procedure went on to issue 
a judicial review claim. The fact that nine chose not to do so shows the utility 
the Royal Courts  of the pre-action protocols as a method for dealing with disputes in a way that 
reduces the need to expensive legal proceedings and limits the burden on the 
of Justice in 
Administrative Court.
One of the claims reaching the Court in 2015/16 was that of Benjamin Geen. As 
London and in 
has been made public by Mr Geen himself, the Commission conceded the case 
because we recognised that there was merit in the remarks made by the single 
a few regional 
judge as he gave permission for the review to proceed. The case was quickly 
al ocated to a Case Review Manager with no prior involvement and they wil , along 
court centres.
with a new Commissioner, look again at the issues with fresh eyes and with the 
points of the single judge in mind.
It is worth mentioning at this point that the Commission tries wherever possible to 
avoid the need for court action and where we consider that an approach seeking a 
judicial review raises a point with sufficient merit that it can only be addressed by 
revisiting the decision, we will simply concede at the earliest opportunity and take 
the appropriate action. This has happened on various occasions and several cases 
have been reopened and decisions retaken. Some cases have been referred as a 
The Commission would rather spend its resources reviewing cases than contesting 
expensive litigation, but on the few occasions when it is necessary we will contest 
judicial reviews all the way through the Administrative Court process.
Of the remaining 11 cases where applicants chose to issue proceedings at 
the Administrative Court, all were refused permission to judicial y review a 
Commission decision. 
Complaints to the Commission
The Commission received 63 complaints during 2015/16 – a 16.5% increase on the 
54 complaints received in the previous year. This year the complaints came from 
60 individual complainants. Two of those complainants also submitted complaints 
during the previous financial year. 
The majority of complaints are made by people whose cases have been reviewed; 
most relate to the decision not to refer a case for appeal. The number of 
complaints received in 2015/16 represents 3.5% of the 1,797 cases closed during 
the year.
We take all complaints seriously and deal with them fairly and transparently. 
Our policy is set our in the Complaints Procedure Formal Memorandum available 
on our website at 
We aim to acknowledge complaints within ten days of receipt and to provide a 
substantive response within 20 days. The average time to acknowledgment was 
eight days in 2015/16 compared to nine days last year. The average time taken to 
issue a substantive response was 39 working days; an improvement last year’s the 
figure of 43 days.

Clearly, the actual length of time taken to provide a substantive response to 
complainants in 2015/16, although shorter than last year, was both well above our 
target and unacceptably long. 
Further analysis has shown that this can be attributed to an increase in both the 
number and complexity of the complaints received in 2015/2016.
Steps were taken during the year to address the issue. These steps, which 
included training an administrator to assist with complaints process, have already 
had an impact and the time taken to provide a substantive response dropped to 
19 working days in the last in the last quarter of the year. 
If a complainant remains dissatisfied after their complaint has been dealt with at 
the first stage of our complaints process, a second stage al ows for the matter to 
be reviewed by the Chief Executive or by one of the Commission’s non-executive 
Sixteen complaints (25%) moved on to stage two of the process in 2015/16. 
This is more than double the number moving to stage two last year and is the 
highest proportion in any year.
A complaint is considered to have been upheld if any aspect of our conduct of the 
case is found to have been deficient regardless of whether or not the deficiency 
affected the outcome. Seven complaints (11%) were upheld in 2015/2016. This is a 
slight increase in number, but the proportion of complaints upheld is the same as 
it was last year.
When a complaint is upheld, the Customer Service Manager can require a range of 
remedies from issuing an apology to re-opening a case.
In 2015/16 the upholding of complaints resulted in the reopening of two cases. 
Last year one case was re-opened after a complaint was upheld.
Most complaints to the Commission are made by applicants on their own behalf. 
In 2015/16 two complaints were made by applicants’ legal representatives. 
Unusual y, we also received one complaint from a family member of murder victim 
who believed that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in relation to the 
person convicted of that murder.
During 2015/16 four complainants raised issues concerning equality and 
During 2015/16 
discrimination; two fewer than in the previous year. The Commission takes such 
al egations very seriously and records them separately in the complaints register. 
four complainants  However, none of the complaints raising discrimination as an issue were upheld 
this year.
raised issues 
As in previous years, the complaints received were from applicants convicted 
of a wide range of offences varying in seriousness. It is noteworthy that, as was 
the case last year, a large percentage of the complaints came from applicants 
convicted of relatively minor offences who did not receive a custodial sentence. 
equality and 
Some 33% of complainants in 2015/16 fell into this category but only 11% of our 
application intake for the year related to convictions for summary offences.
Twenty (32%) of complaints in 2015/16 were from applicants who had a 
two fewer than in  re-application refused. This compares with nine (17%) in 2015/16.
the previous year. Military cases
The Armed Forces Act 2006 amended the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and the Court 
Martial Appeals Act 1986 to give the Commission jurisdiction over convictions 
and/or sentences arising from the Court Martial or Service Civilian Court after 
31st October 2009. During 2015/16 the Commission received five applications 
relating to cases of a military origin including the well publicised one in relation 
to the high profile murder conviction of Alexander Blackman, also known as 
“Marine A“. These new applications bring to 11 the total number of applications 
received by the Commission in relation to military cases. At the time of writing this 
annual report, four cases remain under consideration at the Commission.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Royal Prerogative of Mercy
Section 16 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 gives the Commission two areas of 
responsibility in relation to the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. One is to recommend 
the use of the Royal Prerogative where the Commission sees fit. The other is to 
respond to requests from the Secretary of State in relation to the use of the Royal 
Prerogative. The Commission has had no cause to do either in 2015/16. 
Section 15 investigations
An area of the Commission’s core work that receives relatively little public and 
media attention is the investigative work that we do in relation to cases where the 
Court of Appeal Criminal Division is considering a first appeal or an application for 
leave to appeal.
In such cases the Court of Appeal can direct the Commission to investigate and 
report to it pursuant to section 15 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and 23A of the 
Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
We have observed in recent years that the number of section 15 investigations 
has been fal ing from a high point of nine cases in 2012/13 to four in 2014/15. 
In 2015/16 there were only two such investigations. This appears to support the 
assumption that both the Commission and the Court have made that a new Jury 
Protocol issued in 2012 by the President of the Queenís Bench Division has been 
largely responsible for the drop in the number of occasions where the Court 
considers such investigations necessary.
The first section 15 investigation of 2015/16 involved a case at the application for 
leave stage. The Commission investigated, interviewed a juror and reported to the 
Court on the circumstances under which a defendant, after conviction but before 
sentencing, was contacted on Facebook by a juror in their trial and whether or not 
the juror had used the internet to research the defendant during the trial.
The second, in a case at the full appeal hearing stage, also involved questions 
relating to possible inappropriate contact between a defendant and juror. In this 
case the Commission also interviewed a juror and investigated and reported 
on the circumstances in which the juror had been seen at the prison where the 
defendant had been held.

Human Resources
Details of our staff numbers, composition and costs are given on page 56.
Fol owing the departure of the Director of Finance and Corporate Services in April 
2015, the Commission recruited a new Director of Finance and Corporate Services 
who started with the Commission in November 2015. During the year we recruited 
four front-line administrators; three were permanent contracts and one was a 
fixed term contract. We were also able to offer a permanent post to an incumbent 
apprentice and to continue with our successful apprenticeship programme by 
recruiting a new apprentice in September 2015 for a period of 18 months.
The Commission has in recent years worked closely with the The Kalisher 
Scholarship Trust to provide a number of paid internships at the Commission. The 
scheme has been highly beneficial both for the Commission and for the interns 
who have worked with us. In 2015/16 two Kalisher interns were appointed, each 
for a period of six months. One of the year’s interns has since secured a pupil age 
in Chambers and the other remains with us. Recruitment for two new Kalisher 
interns for 2016/17 started at the end of March 2016. 
Our IT systems
The Commission relies heavily on the existence of a highly secure and stable 
The Commission  IT environment. We achieve this through a small in-house IT team which, again this 
year, has maintained near-100% system availability. 
relies heavily on 
The main work during 2015/16 consisted of maintenance and update activities 
the existence of 
including preparation for migration away from unsupported products and a move 
onto the latest government secure network. 
a highly secure 
Having procured a replacement for the Commission’s crucial case management 
system, we embarked 2014/15 on the building and testing phase of the project. 
and stable IT 
We had expect the new system to go live during 2015/16. However, as discussed 
elsewhere in this report, the withdrawal of capital resource part way through 
the year meant this work and a number of important related projects had to be 
Applicants’ advice line
The Commission operates an advice call rota whereby applicants, potential 
applicants, their lawyers or supporters, can call the Commission and speak to 
one of our Case Review Managers about matters relating to a current or potential 
application. During 2015/16 we logged 842 cal s to the advice line. This is in line 
with last year’s total of 839 cal s but a significant increase on the 650 cal s we 
have typical y handled in recent years. During 2015/16 advice rota cal s related 
to a wide range of issues from murder convictions to shoplifting matters and 
restraining orders.
While the advice rota represents a significant investment of casework resource, 
we view it as a valuable service which, among other things, helps potential 
applicants make the important decisions about matters such as whether should 
apply to the Commission or whether, in view of any remaining appeal rights, they 
should instead appeal direct to the appropriate court.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Our wider contribution
The Commission is fundamental y a caseworking organisation which seeks first 
The Commission  and foremost to deal with cases in a fair and timely manner. We also seek to 
engage with a wide range of stakeholders through a varied programme of activities 
is fundamentally 
and events. Our efforts in this area general y aim to raise awareness of the 
Commission and its work and to build relationships with relevant parties as wel  
a caseworking 
as to feed the knowledge and experience gained by the Commission back into the 
wider criminal justice system.
In April 2015 a Commissioner gave a presentation to a community group 
on the Shankill Road in Belfast under the auspices of Action for Community 
which seeks first  Transformation. The event folowed Commission involvement at a February 2015 
event arranged at the Bar Library in Belfast.
and foremost to 
Also in April 2015, the Commission hosted a fact-finding visit from French 
deal with cases in  Judge Benoit Delepoule as part of a wider visit to the UK arranged by the 
European Judicial Training Network. Lesley Longstone, the Chief Executive of the 
a fair and timely 
Independent Police Complaints Commission, visited the Commission in May 2015.
Mr Wil iam Wragg, MP for Hazel Grove in Manchester, visited the Commission 
in November 2015. Mr Wragg is the MP responsible for proposing the private 
members bill which gave rise to the CCRC Information Bill which sought to extend 
the Commission’s powers to obtain information so that it covers private as well as 
public bodies (see page 14)
In February 2016 the Commission took part, at the behest of the British Council, 
in a Foreign and Commonwealth Office-funded training initiative for government 
officials from states in the Western Balkans. As a result we hosted a visit from 
Mr Nikola Prokopenko, Head of Criminal and Civil Law Unit in the Department of 
Judiciary at the Macedonian Ministry of Justice. 
We continue to have a constructive relationship with the Court of Appeal Criminal 
Division. Lady Justice Hal ett, Vice President of the Court of Appeal Criminal 
Division, and the Registrar, Michael Egan QC, visited the Commission in October 
2015, and Lady Justice Rafferty visited in January 2016. 
In October 2015 Law Commissioner Professor David Ormerod spoke to 
Commissioners and staff on the subject of section 41 of the Youth Justice and 
Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which covers the admissibility of a complainant’s 
sexual history in proceedings. He returned in April 2016 fol owing the UKSC 
judgment in Jogee, to talk about joint enterprise.
Commissioners and staff also try where possible and appropriate to attend and 
contribute to events to which we are invited. 
In 2015/16 such events included the United Against Injustice annual conference 
in Liverpool in October where a Commissioner and a member of staff spoke and 
gave a practical advice session on the work of the Commission. 
In November, our Chair Richard Foster spoke at, and a Commissioner attended, 
the 2015 conference of the Criminal Appeal Lawyers conference in November 
2015. In February 2016 a Commissioner and a member of staff addressed students 
from the Policing and Criminal Investigation degree course at De Montfort 
University in Leicester about the work of the Commission.
Feeding back to the criminal justice system on specific matters
During 2015/16, the Commission Chair has written to a number of bodies and 
individuals to raise some specific matters arising from cases referred by the 
Commission and/or decided in the appeal courts during the year (see pages 7 
and 8). 

Our increased activity, and the increased reporting of our activity in this area, 
fol ows from the enquiry into the Commission conducted last year by the Justice 
Select Committee which is discussed in more detail below.
Commissioners and staff made significant contributions to the creation in 
November 2015 of the Law Society’s new practice note dealing with defences 
available to asylum seekers charged with document offences. Practice notes set 
out what the Law Society’s considers to be good practice in a particular area 
of law. 
The note on defences available to asylum seekers relies heavily on lessons 
learned in the line of recent Commission referral cases relating to people arriving 
in the UK without proper travel documents, and being advised to plead guilty, 
in circumstances where they would be entitled to rely on a statutory defence. 
The Commission hopes that the new practice note will help reduce the number of 
wrongful convictions arising in this area.
We have referred one case to the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority in 2015/16 in 
which the conduct of a solicitor raised serious concerns.
During 2015/16 the Commission also made contributions to the Ministry of Justice 
consultation on the Victims’ Code, the Commons Public Bil s Committee inquiry 
into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bil , and to the Commons Science and 
Technology Committee inquiry on Forensic Science Strategy.
We are currently responding to the invitation of the Sentencing Council to take 
part in its consultation exercise regarding their Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty 
Plea Guideline. 
Commission representatives regularly attend meetings of the Criminal Procedure 
Rule Committee. During the year the Commission was also represented on the 
Forensic Science Advisory Council by Commissioner Julie Goulding. Commissioner 
Andrew Rennison, formerly the Forensic Science Regulator (FSR), was Chairman of 
the FSR’s Quality Standards Specialist Group while Commissioner Ewen Smith was 
Deputy Chairman of that group.
The Commission is represented on the Court of Appeal Criminal Division’s User 
Group by our Chief Executive, Karen Knel er. She also sits on the Advisory Board 
from the police 
of University of Nottingham’s Criminal Justice Research Centre.
and Crown 
Feeding back in the future
In early 2015 the Justice Select Committee held an extensive inquiry into the work 
of the Commission. The inquiry and its findings were discussed in large part in last 
year’s Annual Report and Accounts. One of the Committee’s recommendations 
Service through 
was that the Commission should make better use of it’s: “unique position” in order 
to “feed back into the criminal justice system on things going wrong and the 
to the courts 
causes of miscarriages of justice”. Its specific recommendation was that:
“…CCRC should develop a formal system for regularly feeding back into al  
and the Ministry 
areas of the criminal justice system, from the police and Crown Prosecution 
Service through to the courts and the Ministry of Justice, on its understanding 
of Justice, on its 
of the issues which are continuing to cause miscarriages of justice.” 
understanding of  We agree with the Justice Select Committee’s conclusion in this regard and during 
2015/16, the Commission’s Board approved plans to instigate just such a formal 
the issues which  system designed to help us capture lessons from casework and ensure they are 
shared, in an appropriate way, with all relevant parts of the justice system or with 
are continuing 
any other body or entity. 
Moreover, we have determined to improve the way in which we record case 
to cause 
specific data with a view to compiling a data set that we, and possibly others, can 
interrogate to see what lessons might be derived from patterns in that casework 
miscarriages of 
data. For instance, it might be interesting and useful to use it to test the hypothesis 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
that changes to the criminal legal aid system might increase the frequency with 
which issues of defence incompetence appear in and affect Commission cases.
We have made some good progress designing this system. We have created 
new procedures designed to ensure that we record the salient points of cases 
and careful y consider what lessons they be derived from them. This approach 
is reflected in the increase this year in the number of occasions when we have 
directly raised matters with agencies such as the police and the CPS. We expect to 
further increase activity in this area.
Unfortunately, capital funding issues during the year meant that the project to 
install a new casework IT system had to be mothbal ed. The new casework system 
would have been central to the capture and analysis of the relevant data. We have 
pressed ahead with implementing changes to procedures designed to ensure that 
the right questions are addressed at the right stages of our casework process, but 
we have been unable to begin the data capture on which the new system depends. 
Fortunately, we will in the year ahead be able to reinstate the project to replace 
that casework IT system. When that work is completed, we will be able to begin 
building a relevant casework database. We also plan to link it to compatible data 
captured in the course of academic research at the Commission.
Academic Research
During 2015/16 we continued to make significant progress with our plans to 
stimulate serious academic research in subject areas relevant to our work by 
al owing control ed access to the Commission and its casework records.
The Commission’s Research Committee was established in 2014/15 to direct 
our efforts in this regard. With the help of its independent academic members, 
the Committee has not only established procedure and protocols governing 
various aspects of research work at the Commission, it has also identified key 
areas of research interest, commissioned internal research projects and, in 
February 2016, issued research cal s in three subject areas; legal aid, young 
offenders and non-Troubles related cases in Northern Ireland. The deadline for 
expressions of interest was August 2016. At the time of writing this report a range 
of parties had already expressed interest and we are confident we will be able to 
identify suitable candidates to design and carry out useful and interesting research 
work in those areas.
Professor Carolyn Hoyle of the Oxford Centre for Criminology, drew on her 
four-year study of decision-making at the CCRC when she presented her paper 
“Discretion and Decision-making at the CCRC” at the Criminal Appeal Lawyers 
Conference in London in November 2015. We look forward to the publication of 
Professor Hoyle’s completed research project.
During 2015/16 
We also look forward to seeing the PhD thesis of Dr Wil iam Schmidt, a visiting 
Gates Scholar at University of Cambridge whose work explored, through the 
we ran 38 mostly  analysis of Commission casework, the causes of wrongful convictions and looks 
at what factors statistical y predict the Commission’s referrals and at what factors 
casework related  predict an appelate court quashing a conviction folowing referral.
We will provide details of these and other research on a dedicated section of the 
training sessions  Commission’s website.
which together 
Training and Knowledge Management
The Commission’s runs a substantial programme of in-house and external training 
amounted to 
designed to ensure that staff have up-to-date skil s and knowledge. During 2015/16 
we ran 38 mostly casework related training sessions which together amounted to 
45.5 hours worth  45.5 hours worth of CPD points for qualifying staff. The subject matter included 
DNA, cell site analysis, historic sexual offences and the Serious and Organised 
of CPD points for  Crime and Police Act 2005. Such training sessions are generaly recorded and 
made available, via our intranet, to staff who were interested but unable to attend. 
qualifying staff.

A number of specific training sessions, including one on managing staff absence, 
were provided to staff with line management responsibilities. 
We have continued during 2015/16 to develop our approach to knowledge 
Our Knowledge 
management. Our Knowledge Manager has continued to help the Commission to 
make the best use of the knowledge, experience and information at its disposal 
Manager has 
both in the skill and know-how of its staff and in the data held in IT and other 
systems. She has continued to expand and develop the Commission’s bespoke 
continued to help  intranet facility as our principal tool for the capture and dissemination of 
knowledge within the organisation.
the Commission 
Internet and Social Media
to make the 
As reported last year, we were, on 30th March 2015, able to reinstate an 
independent CCRC website after a number of years when our web presence 
best use of the 
was restricted to a handful of pages on a government site. Our aim was always 
to build upon that independent web presence with the appropriate use of social 
media. Subsequently, in April 2016 we instigated a Commission Twitter feed and a 
Facebook page. We wil  use these various communication channels in combination 
experience and 
in order to make available information about the Commission and to engage with 
our stakeholders and with the wider public.
information at 
Records Management
its disposal both 
Our effectiveness as a caseworking organisation depends in large part on our 
ability to obtain casework material and manage the flow of documents and 
in the skill and 
information. Our handling of such material is subject to legislation including the 
Public Records Acts of 1958 and 1967, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the 
know-how of 
Freedom of Information Act 2000. We act in accordance with the requirements of 
those Acts, and in consultation with the National Archives, in the way we create, 
its staff and in 
manage and preserve or destroy records. We operate a retention and disposal 
schedule which sets out how we will manage all paper and electronic records in 
the data held 
our possession.
in IT and other 
The Commission’s Records Management team deals expertly with the ongoing 
high level of demand for the acquisition and management of casework material. 
Partly as a result of the voluntary audit conducted in 2015/16 by the Information 
Commissioner’s Office (see below), and partly because of our own pre-existing 
plans, we will be revisiting and refreshing a number of policies that deal with the 
way in the Commission handles paper and electronic records. 
The Information Commissioner’s Office
The Commission volunteered to undergo a data protection audit by the 
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This was an audit of the Commission’s 
compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998, and to a lesser extent, with the 
Freedom of Information Act 2000. 
It was agreed in November 2015 that the ICO audit would focus on three areas: 
data protection governance – the extent to which appropriate policies and 
procedures are in place to govern the way in which the Commission handles 
personal data; training and awareness – the provision and monitoring of staff data 
protection training and awareness; and records management – the processes in 
place for managing electronic and manual records such as the creation, storage, 
movement, retention and destruction of records containing personal data.
The audit took place between 19th and 21st of January 2016 and was conducted 
by four members of ICO staff. It involved more than 30 interviews with members 
of Commission staff as well as a visit to a secure off-site storage facility and the 
provision to the ICO of several hundred pages of written material.
At the time of writing this annual report, the results of the ICO audit had not been 
finalised. The outcomes of the ICO audit will be dealt with in more detail in next 
year’s report. The Commission takes extremely seriously its responsibilities in 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
relation to the handling of personal data and all other material in its possession. 
We welcome the ICO audit and will of course give serious consideration to its 
report and to any recommendations that may arise from it.
The Miscarriage of Justice Support Service
The Commission maintains a good working relationship with the Miscarriage of 
The Commission  Justice Support Service (MJSS). The MJSS is a specialised and separately NOMS-
funded service delivered by RCJ Advice (a Citizens Advice Bureau) which offers 
maintains a 
practical help and support to people whose convictions are quashed after a 
Commission referral or after an out-of-time appeal. A Commission representative 
good working 
occasional y attends meetings of the Trustees of the MJSS.
relationship with  In January 2016 the MJSS Advisory Board agreed to extend the organisation’s 
remit to al ow it to offer support to individuals whose referrals are part of the line 
the Miscarriage 
of asylum and immigration cases that the Commission has dealt with in recent 
years. The MJSS has also said it will explore the possibility of extending its support 
of Justice Support  in CCRC cases to include assistance in finding appropriate legal representation 
for an appeal that fol ows a CCRC referral. Both developments are welcomed by 
Service (MJSS).
the Commission.
Financial Resources and Performance
The funding of the Commission is entirely by means of a cash grant, cal ed a Grant 
in Aid, from the Ministry of Justice. Financial control is mainly exercised by means 
of delegated budgets. These are divided into three categories. The Resource 
Departmental Expenditure Limit (RDEL) covers most cash expenditure, but also 
includes depreciation; Resource Annually Managed Expenditure (RAME) covers 
movements in provisions; and Capital DEL (CDEL) is for expenditure on non-
current assets which are capitalised. Financial performance is therefore measured 
against each of these budget control totals. 
The Ministry of Justice also funds the Commission’s liabilities with respect to 
the by-analogy pensions for Commissioners. The use of provisions and the cash 
payments arising do not form part of the DEL or AME control totals. 
For 2015/16 the Commission received a delegated Resource DEL budget, 
excluding notional costs, of £5.180 mil ion and was initially given indications that a 
CDEL budget of £207,000 would be made available. These figures were reported 
in last year’s annual report and accounts. On the strength of those expectations, 
some orders were placed in relation to the ongoing IT projects. It is mentioned 
elsewhere in the report that confirmation of the capital funding was ultimately not 
forthcoming, and agreement was reached with the Ministry of Justice that £47,000 
would be transferred from the resource budget to cover the capital commitments 
already placed, thus reducing the Resource DEL total to £5.133 mil ion. 
Performance is therefore measured against these revised totals. 
At the time of writing the Commission has received a firm budget for 2016/17. 
The table below shows a comparison of budget figures for the current year, the 
previous year and the fol owing year. 
2014/15  2015/16  2016/17 
Fiscal RDEL
Non-cash RDEL
RDEL total
Note: Figures for 2014/15 and 2015/16 budgets have been amended from previous annual reports to 
show the correct treatment of movements in the by-analogy pension scheme provisions for benefits 
paid, which are neither reported as DEL or AME. 

The cash Grant in Aid received from the Ministry of Justice is drawn in accordance 
with government accounting rules such that it is only to be drawn when needed, 
and the Commission forecasts its cash requirement on a monthly basis. By only 
drawing down the amount of Grant in Aid needed in the month, the Commission 
aims to keep its monthly end of period cash balances as low as possible. The 
balance at the end of the year was £63,000 (2014/15 £9,000), the increase 
triggered by a short delay paying one or two supplier invoices while we clarified 
certain issues, which coincided with the year end. 
Banking arrangements were simplified during the year with accounts rationalised 
so that all banking is carried out through the Government Banking service. 
Financial performance as measured by expenditure against budget is one of our 
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The targets for KPI 8 are that for each of RDEL 
and CDEL expenditure should not exceed budget, nor fal  below budget more 
than 2.5%.
The Commission’s actual expenditure compared with budget was as fol ows:
Ex-notional costs:
Fiscal DEL
In 2015/16 the Commission’s actual expenditure against the RDEL total was 
In 2015/16 the 
£5.314 mil ion and within 0.06% of the budget provided. It also represented 
a reduction in actual expenditure compared to 2014/15 of 3.5%. Whilst it is 
not a target we set ourselves, given that cases require whatever resources are 
appropriate to their complexity, in terms of cost per case closed, the figure 
reduced from £ 3,370 to £2,957, an improvement greater than 12%. In the past 
two years the cost per closed case has reduced by 38%, reflecting notable 
efficiencies mentioned elsewhere in this report. 
Expenditure shown above excludes notional costs. Notional expenditure is a 
against the 
presentational item included to ensure that the financial statements show the true 
cost of the Commission’s operations. It is neither scored against the Commission’s 
RDEL total was 
budgets nor actual y incurred by the Commission. Notional costs relate to the 
cost of office accommodation, which is borne by the sponsor department on 
£5.314 million 
behalf of the Commission. The increase in notional costs from £607,000 to 
£665,000 relates to the fact that estimates for the cost of office service charges 
and within 0.06%  are made during each year which can only finalised in the folowing year. It is the 
movement between the estimated and actual costs relating to 2014/15 that caused 
of the budget 
the apparent increase in 2015/16.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
The notional costs are included in the Statement of Comprehensive Net 
Expenditure in accordance with the FReM. There is an equivalent reversing entry 
in the Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity. Full details are given in notes 1 
and 18 to the accounts. The table below reconciles to net expenditure after 
interest as shown in the statement of comprehensive net expenditure on page 61: 
as follows:
2015/16  2014/15 
Resource DEL
Resource AME
Total resource expenditure
Notional expenditure
Note 18
Net expenditure after interest
The accounts for the year ended 31st March 2016 are set out on pages 61 to 79.
The Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure on page 61 shows total 
expenditure for the year of £5.99 mil ion (2014/15 – £6.11 mil ion). Staff costs have 
decreased by £63,000 compared with the previous year. Other expenditure has 
also decreased from £1.49 mil ion in 2014/15 to £1.42 mil ion in the current year. 
Looking forward to 2016/17, expenditure pressures will arise from salary 
increases and, more particularly, the increase in Employers’ National Insurance 
contributions, fol owing the introduction of the new State Pension arrangements 
from 6th April 2016. The commission will have to absorb these, and other 
inflationary, pressures within its delegated budget.
By far the largest item on the Statement of Financial Position is the pension 
In 2015/16, the 
liability arising from the Commission’s commitments to Commissioners for the 
by-analogy pension scheme. For those Commissioners entitled to this benefit, 
current service 
the Commission has to reflect the increase in liabilities relating to their service, 
interest thereon and adjustments arising from actuarial revaluations. The provision 
cost increased 
reduces as benefits are paid. In recent times, Commissioners have been, and 
continue to be, appointed without a pension. It means that as the longer serving 
from £102,000 
Commissioners come to the end of their respective terms, the current service cost 
will tend to reduce. In 2015/16, the current service cost increased from £102,000 
to £124,000 
to £124,000 fol owing a change to the estimated final salary used to calculate 
benefits. The interest (unwinding of the discount) also contributed to an increase 
following a 
in the liability, while this year, in addition to the reduction caused by benefits 
paid, there was an actuarial gain of £95,000 which further reduced it, such that 
change to the 
the liability reduced by £5,000 in the current year. The Statement of Financial 
Position on page 62 now shows overall net liabilities of £6.285 mil ion (2014/15 
estimated final 
£6.235 mil ion). The net liabilities largely fall due in future years, and will be 
funded as necessary from future Grant in Aid provided by the Ministry of Justice. 
salary used to 
As a result, it has been considered appropriate to continue to adopt the going 
concern basis for the preparation of the accounts. This is discussed further in the 
calculate benefits. Accounting Policies note on page 65.

Compliance with public sector payment
The Commission fol ows the principles of the Better Payment Practice Code. 
The Commission aims to pay suppliers wherever possible within ten days. 
Where this is not possible, the Commission works to targets to pay suppliers in 
accordance with either the payment terms negotiated with them or with suppliers’ 
standard terms (if specific terms have not been negotiated). The average terms 
are approximately 30 days, and performance against this target is shown in the 
table below:
Total invoices paid in year
Total invoices paid within year
Percentage of invoices paid within target
Performance has exceeded our 95% target for number of invoices paid but is just 
under in terms of invoice value. No interest was paid under the Late Payment of 
Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.
By virtue of employing fewer than 100 staff and occupying office space less than 
1000m2, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is exempt from preparing a 
sustainability report pursuant to the Government commitments to “greening” the 
public sector. In addition, preparing a statement, which accurately reflects the 
Commission, presents chal enges because the office accommodation, as part of a 
multiple occupier building, is not separately metered for electricity, gas and water 
usage, or waste disposals. That said, the Commission encourages staff awareness 
and choices, which reduce the environmental footprint of the organisation.
Karen Kneller  
Chief Executive and Accounting Officer 
28th June 2016

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Section Two
Accountability Report
The accountability report his section is sets out information relating to the 
structure, management and governance of the organisation.
Corporate Governance Report
The directors’ report
The Commission’s Board is made up of the Commissioners, the Chief Executive 
and Directors and the Non-executive Directors.
Commissioners are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime 
Minister. Each Commissioner is appointed for a period of up to five years and can, 
if re-appointed, serve for a maximum of ten years.
At the end of March 2016 there were 12 Commissioners including the Chair, 
Mr Richard Foster CBE. There have been no arrivals or departures among the 
Commissioners and therefore during 2015/16 the Commissioners were:
Mr Richard Foster CBE (Chair)
Mrs Elizabeth Calderbank 
Mr James England
Miss Julie Goulding
Ms Celia Hughes
Mr Stephen Leach CB
Ms Alexandra Marks
Dr Sharon Persaud 
Mr Andrew Rennison
Mr David James Smith
Mr Ewen Smith
Mr Ranjit Sondhi CBE 
The Chief Executive and Directors
During 2015/16, responsibility for the day-to-day running of the Commission 
fell to Miss Karen Knel er, Chief Executive and Accounting Officer and Mrs Sal y 
Berlin, Director of Casework Operations. From 1 April until 27 April the Director of 
Finance and Corporate Services was Justin Rees. An interim Head of Finance was 
in post until 12th November 2015 when Mr Ian Brooks started work as Director 
of Finance and Corporate Services. Together the two Directors and the Chief 
Executive make up the Senior Management Team.
Non-executive Directors
During the year the Commission Non-executive directors were Mrs Caroline 
Corby, Mr Jonathan Baume and Dr Maggie Semple OBE, FCGI. 
Code of Best Practice
The Commission adopted a Code of Best Practice for Commissioners at its first 
meeting in January 1997. This code was revised in 2012 in light of the Cabinet 
Office Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies and it was decided 
to merge the Staff Code of Conduct with the Commissioner Code of Conduct. The 
resulting Code of Conduct for Commission Board Members and Employees sets 
out the standards of personal and professional behaviour and propriety expected 
of all Board members and members of staff. The key principles on which the 
code is based are the Seven Principles of Public Life, also known as the Nolan 
principles. The Code of Conduct for Commission Board Members and Employees 

includes a commitment to maintain a register of Commissioners’ interests and to 
make that register available, by appointment, for inspection at the Commission.
Audit and Risk Committee
This Committee ensures high standards of financial reporting and proper systems 
of internal control and reporting procedures. It reviews internal and external audit 
reports on behalf of the Commission. The committee is chaired by Commission 
non-executive director Dr Maggie Semple.
Arrangements for external audit are provided for under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 
to the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, which requires that the Comptrol er and Auditor 
General examine, certify and report on the statement of accounts. The report, 
together with the accounts, is laid before each House of Parliament. 
No remuneration was paid to the auditor for non-audit work during the year. The 
members of the Board have taken all the steps which they ought to have taken to 
make themselves aware of any relevant audit information and to establish that the 
Commission’s auditor is aware of that information. As far as the members of the 
Board are aware, there is no relevant audit information of which the Commission’s 
auditor is unaware.
Personal data related incidents
The Commission takes very seriously its responsibilities to protect personal data 
relating to applicants, witnesses, victims and others. Section 23 of the Criminal 
Appeal Act 1995 makes it an offence to disclose any information obtained by the 
Commission in the exercise of its functions except in very specific circumstances. 
There were no personal data related incidents in 2015/16, or in any previous year, 
which had to be reported to the Information Commissioner or were otherwise 
recorded as being of significance. 
However, in June 2015 we learned that a box containing casework material that 
we had obtained from a public body, a police force, had been damaged while at 
our off-site secure storage facility. We were not able to verify whether or not any 
material was missing from the box. As a result of this incident, we now require 
any damage to our boxes to be reported so that Commission staff can attend 
and re-box the material as staff at the facility do not have the authority to deal 
with content of Commission boxes. The incident described here was discussed 
with the Information Commissioner’s Office during its audit of the Commission 
(see page 37).
Expenses of Commission Chair and Chief Executive
The total expenses claimed in 2015/16 by the Chair was £331.23. The total claimed 
by the Chief Executive was £25.00.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Statement of the Accounting Officer’s responsibilities
Under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the Secretary of State (with the consent of 
HM Treasury) has directed the Criminal Cases Review Commission to prepare for 
each financial year a statement of accounts in the form and on the basis set out 
in the Accounts Direction. The accounts are prepared on an accruals basis and 
must give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Criminal Cases Review 
Commission and of its resource outturn, application of resources, changes in 
taxpayers’ equity and cash flows for the financial year. 
In preparing the accounts, the Accounting Officer is required to comply with the 
requirements of the Government Financial Reporting Manual and in particular to: 
z observe the Accounts Direction issued by the Secretary of State (with the 
consent of HM Treasury), including the relevant accounting and disclosure 
requirements, and apply suitable accounting policies on a consistent basis; 
z make judgements and estimates on a reasonable basis; 
z state whether applicable accounting standards as set out in the Government 
Financial Reporting Manual have been fol owed, and disclose and explain any 
material departures in the accounts; and 
z prepare the accounts on a going concern basis. 
The Accounting Officer of the Ministry of Justice has designated the Chief 
Executive as Accounting Officer of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. 
The responsibilities of an Accounting Officer, including responsibility for the 
propriety and regularity of the public finances for which the Accounting Officer 
is answerable, for keeping proper records and for safeguarding the Commission’s 
assets, are set out in Managing Public Money published by the HM Treasury.
The Accounting Officer is also required to confirm that:
(a)  as far as she is aware, there is no relevant audit information of which the 
entity’s auditors are unaware;
(b)  She has taken all the steps necessary to make herself aware of any relevant 
audit information and to establish that the entity’s auditors are aware of that 
(c)  the annual report and accounts as a whole is fair, balanced and 
understandable; and
(d)  she takes personal responsibility for the annual report and accounts and the 
judgments required for determining that it is fair, balanced and understandable.
Karen Kneller  
Chief Executive and Accounting Officer 
28th June 2016

Governance Statement
The Governance Statement is prepared annual y by the Accounting Officer. It 
explains the system and processes, culture and values, by which the Accounting 
Officer discharges her responsibilities to manage and control the Commission’s 
resources and risks during the year. The statement provides an assessment of 
how we have achieved these objectives. 
As Accounting Officer, I have responsibility for reviewing the effectiveness of 
the system of internal control, including the risk management framework. These 
responsibilities are laid out in the HM Treasury document “Managing Public 
Money”. My review is informed by the work of the executive managers within the 
Commission who have responsibility for the development and maintenance of the 
internal control framework, the work of our internal auditors and comments made 
by the external auditors in their management letter.
My statement outlines the legal framework in which the CCRC operates, and how 
the oversight arrangements we have in place provide assurance of the CCRC’s 
stewardship of public funds.
Governance framework
The Commission was founded by legislation in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, 
which describes the broad structure and function of the Commission. The diagram 
below il ustrates how the CCRC relates to our sponsor department, the Ministry of 
Justice (MoJ), and is held, from time to time, to account by Parliament in the form 
of the Justice Select Committee.
Governance Framework
Justice Select Committee
Parliamentary Scrutiny of CCRC activities and performance
Ministry of Justice
Sponsorship, Arms Length Bodies Governance, Finance, Internal Audit, 
Information Technology and Health & Safety
Framework Agreement
CCRC Board
Chief Executive, 2 Directors
Audit and Risk
Long Running
Cases Review
Supports the Board
Supports the Board on
Supports the Board
on Governance,
ensuring achievement
on issues of Senior
Compliance and
of Operational
Staff Remuneration
Risk Management
The framework agreement between the MoJ establishes certain aspects of 
governance and accountability for the CCRC, but the structure of the Board, and 
its sub committees, are largely a decision for the CCRC. 
Since a decision taken in the latter half of 2014/15, the CCRC board comprised 
the Chairman, Chief Executive, al  Commissioners, two Directors and three Non-
Executive members. This fol owed a trial period in 2014/15 of a smal er board, 
the evaluation of which indicated that the full board would be more efficient and 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
effective. The board meets monthly focussing its attention on the delivery of our 
strategic priorities. It is supported in delivering its objectives by the Audit and Risk 
Committee, the Long Running Cases Review Committee and the Remuneration 
Committee. The Chief Executive and two Directors form the Commission’s 
Senior Management Team, which meets at least monthly to ensure operational 
effectiveness and monitor performance. 
Details of the post holders are given on page 42 of this report.
Membership of the main committees and the attendance record of members is 
shown in the table. 
Attendance Record
Attendance at eligible meetings
Audit & Risk
Rem. Com.
Long Running
L. Calderbank
J. England
R. Foster
J. Goulding
C. Hughes
S. Leach
A. Marks
S. Persaud
A Rennison
D. J. Smith
E. Smith
R. Sondhi
J. Baume
C. Corby
M. Semple
S. Berlin
I. Brooks
K. Kneller
Chief Executive
J. Rees
* = Chair, ‡ = in attendance
The Audit and Risk Committee supports the Board and myself as the Accounting 
Officer in discharging their responsibilities for issues of risk, control and 
governance. Specifical y, it advises the Accounting Officer and the Board on the 
strategic processes for risk, control and governance; the accounting policies, the 
accounts, and the annual report; the planned activity and results of both internal 
and external audit and anti-fraud policies and whistle-blowing processes. The 
Committee meets quarterly and regularly reviews the Commission’s major risks 
and the plans for their mitigation.
The Long Running Cases Review Committee focuses attention on those cases that 
have been under review for two years or more. These long running cases are often 
complex, or raise particular chal enges. With our ambition to deliver good quality 
reviews in a shorter timescale, the CCRC recognises the importance of timely 
review and intervention. Notwithstanding that the applicants expect progress 
of their cases, these reviews also have the potential to consume considerable 
resources, to the detriment of our overall performance. The Long Running Cases 
Review Committee has been instrumental in helping improve the CCRC to reach 
decisions on many of these applications. 

The Remuneration Committee keeps under review the salaries of the senior staff 
which are not placed on the Commission’s normal salary scales, and considers any 
other remuneration issues related to staff. The Committee is chaired by one of the 
non-executive directors, and normally meets annually or as required.
In addition to the Board sub-committees there are a number of other committees 
and groups that contribute to the wider governance of the Commission. 
These include the Research Committee, Internal Communications Group, the 
Management Information Security Forum, the Equality and Diversity Group and 
various ad hoc groups formed to discharge specific functions.
Board performance
The Board maintains a number of processes and systems to ensure that 
it can operate effectively. Recruitment by the sponsor department of new 
Commissioners is conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner 
for Public Appointments’ code of practice. New members receive induction 
commensurate with their experience and knowledge of the public sector and the 
criminal justice system. Board members are subject to regular personal appraisal.
Meeting agendas and papers are made available to members electronical y and 
as paper copies one week before Board meetings. Papers provide sufficient 
information and evidence for sound decision-making. A Board work plan is 
established at the beginning of each year, and agendas are planned to ensure al  
areas of the Board’s responsibilities are examined during the year.
The Board carries out an annual self-evaluation of its performance, using a 
questionnaire published by the National Audit Office which compares how the 
Board operates with the recommendations in the Corporate Governance Code. 
The Board completed a self evaluation exercise in March 2016, which enabled 
an analysis of how the larger unitary board, re-established in 2015/16, was 
functioning in comparison to a smal er board in 2014/15, which had been trial ed 
fol owing a recommendation in the last Triennial review, a review led by the 
Cabinet office. The overriding conclusions from this survey were a significant 
improvement in the cohesiveness of the Board and in its performance in general. 
In the spirit of continuous improvement, as Accounting Officer, I will be working 
with the Board to build on these advances. 
Compliance with the Corporate Governance Code
The Commission aims to ensure that its governance arrangements fol ow 
best practice, and fol ow the Corporate Governance Code to the extent that 
it is relevant and meaningful. The Board has identified the fol owing material 
departures from the provisions of the Code:
z The Board has no nominations and governance committee, as it is considered 
that the size of the organisation does not warrant it.
z The constitution of the Board does not reflect the optimal balance 
recommended by the Code. By virtue of being a Commission, in which al  
Commissioners are also Board members, there is potential y an imbalance 
between executive members and non-executive, particularly given the number 
of non-executive directors which is below the recommended minimum of four. 
As there are only three non-executive directors, it is not considered necessary 
to designate one of them as the lead non-executive director. Only one of 
them is on the Audit and Risk Committee to ensure there is an appropriate 
segregation of duties. A Non-executive Director chairs each of the other Board 
Sub Committees. 
z Approximately two thirds of Board members are Commissioners. They are 
selected primarily for their ability to make casework decisions and for their 
experience of the criminal justice system. The ability of the Board to ensure 
that it has the necessary mix and balance of skil s is therefore somewhat 
limited, but the opportunity is taken at each recruitment round to ensure that 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
any gaps in the broader skil s, experience and background of members are 
z The membership of the Audit and Risk Committee diverges from the 
recommendations of the Corporate Governance Code, in so far as only the 
Chair is ful y independent of the Commission. By virtue of the Commission’s 
constitution under the Criminal Appeals Act 1995 which formed it, the 
Commissioner members, however, retain a degree of independence and 
scrutiny over the Chief Executive and the Directors.
Risk Management
The system of internal control is a significant part of the governance framework 
and is designed to manage risk to a reasonable level. The system of internal 
control is based on an ongoing process designed to identify and prioritise the 
risks to the achievement of the Commission’s policies, aims and objectives, to 
evaluate the likelihood and potential impact of those risks being realised, and to 
manage them efficiently, effectively and economically. It cannot eliminate all risk 
of failure to achieve policies, aims and objectives and can therefore only provide 
reasonable and not absolute assurance of effectiveness. The Commission’s 
internal control framework is based on the review of regular management 
information, administrative procedures including the segregation of duties, and a 
system of delegation and accountability. This is supported by regular meetings of 
the Board at which the Commission’s strategic direction and plans are reviewed, 
and performance against goals is reported.
The Commission’s risk management framework, il ustrated below, ensures that 
risks to the Commission achieving its business objectives are identified, managed 
and monitored. 
Risk Management Framework
●  Ensures that the strategic risks to achieving corporate
    objectives are the “right” ones and are being managed 
CCRC Board
●  Determine the risk tolerance of the CCRC for each 
    individual risk.
●  Estabilshes a culture of openness and learning.
●  Establishes the risk framework.
●  Sponsors individual, complex risks and issues.
●  Promotes risk awareness culture, communication.
●  Actively identify risks in their professional area,
Risk Owners
    understand, evaluate and escalate risks and
    recommend mitigation. Monitor effectiveness.
●  Ensure organisational capability.
●  Reviews Risk Management Approach.
Audit & Risk
●  Agrees Internal Audit Programme, focussed on key
    risks, reviewing results and implementation of 
●  Supports Board on Risk Management.
Risks are assessed in the light of their impact and likelihood using a scale which 
reflects the Commission’s appetite for risk. Risk appetite is determined by 
reference to the Commission’s objectives, the degree to which it is able to absorb 
financial shock and its need to maintain its reputation in order to continue to 
command respect and support amongst its stakeholders. 

Individual risks are assigned to named individuals, and risks are reviewed on 
a systematic and regular basis. Each review is endorsed by the Audit and Risk 
Committee and a report is made annual y by the Audit and Risk Committee to the 
Board. A summary of significant risks and progress against mitigating actions is 
also included in the Board’s management information pack for review at each of its 
meetings. In addition, the assessment and monitoring of risk is embedded in the 
Commission’s project management processes.
TIAA Ltd. was awarded a three-year contract to provide internal audit services 
to 31st March 2018 fol owing competitive tender in 2014/15. An annual plan of 
internal audit work is agreed by the Audit and Risk Committee, and included 
a review of the Commission’s Risk Management processes and procedures, 
receiving a reasonable assurance rating. Management acted on the two 
operational recommendations. Both internal and external audits assist the 
Commission with the continuous improvement of procedures and controls. 
Actions are agreed in response to recommendations, and these are fol owed up to 
ensure that they are implemented. 
During the year, the Commission has continued to ensure that it is managing risks 
relating to information security appropriately. Information security and governance 
arrangements broadly comply with the ISO 27001 Information Security 
Management standard. An internal audit of the statement of compliance was 
completed during the year with no significant recommendations. Self-evaluation 
of the Commission’s compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Security 
Policy Framework relating to information assurance was positive. All staff were 
briefed on the Commission’s policy on reporting security incidents as part of the 
programme of security awareness training. 
Major risks
As part of the Business Planning process for 2016/17, the Board took the 
opportunity to consider the major risks to the Commission achieving its strategic 
and planned objectives, and those that would have greatest operational impact. 
While not an exhaustive list of the risks discussed by the Board, the key risks are 
summarised in the following table:
Key Risks
●  The ongoing lengthy queues, which can be heavily
    influenced by the number and complexity of the cases
    we are asked to review.
●  The security of the information we obtain in order to 
    perform our work, set against the increasing quantum
    of demands under the Data Protection and Freedom of 
    Information legislation.
●  Obtaining sufficient resources and capital funding to 
    maintain the level of casework personnel and improve 
    the IT environment.
●  Maintaining and motivating a highly qualified workforce
    with sufficient skills and manageable workload in a 
    demand led organisation.
●  Ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our staff while 
    performing their roles, particularly on activities away
    from the office.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Effectiveness of Whistleblowing Policy
The CCRC Whistleblowing Policy was last revised during 2014/15, and nominates 
one of the Commissioners as Whistleblowing champion. The policy is reviewed 
on a bi-annual cycle. During the year several policies, including the Code of 
Conduct for Commissioners and Staff, the Travel and Expenses Policy, and the 
Gifts and Hospitality Policy were updated. The communication and dissemination 
of these reviews provided an opportunity to remind staff of the provisions of the 
Whistleblowing Policy should they, at any time, have concerns over the conduct of 
others. During 2015/16 there were no concerns raised by staff. 
Accounting Officer
In their annual report, our internal auditors have given an overall assurance 
that the Commission has adequate and effective management and governance 
processes. I have been advised on the implications of the result of my review 
by the Board and the Audit and Risk Committee. I am satisfied that a plan to 
address any weaknesses in the system of internal control and ensure continuous 
improvement of the system is in place. I am also satisfied that all material risks 
have been identified, and that those risks are being properly managed. The 
indicative budget we have received for 2016/17 maintains our current level of 
funding in nominal money terms, meaning that we are absorbing inflationary 
pressures and continuing to seek efficiencies in our procedures. In 2015/16 
our Whole System Review of casework has proven very effective in delivering 
efficiencies while maintaining quality, and has helped us to significantly shorten 
waiting times for applicants. Nevertheless there is still some way to go before 
further we reduce waiting times to our targeted level.
Karen Kneller  
Chief Executive and Accounting Officer 
28th June 2016

Remuneration & Staff Report
Remuneration policy
The remuneration of Commissioners is set by the Secretary of State for Justice. 
Although Commissioners are appointed with different weekly time commitments, 
all Commissioners, with the exception of the Chairman, are paid salaries at one 
of two ful -time equivalent rates. The ful -time rate for Commissioners appointed 
prior to 2012/13 is £88,836 per annum plus a contributory pension with benefits 
which are broadly-by-analogy to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The 
ful -time rate for Commissioners appointed in 2012/13 and subsequent years is 
£93,796 per annum, with no entitlement to a pension. The ful -time rate for the 
Chairman is £104,800 per annum (2014/15 – £104,800). During 2016 a recruitment 
campaign will be undertaken to replace retiring Commissioners. It is expected that 
the new Commissioners will be covered by a revised remuneration policy. They 
will be paid on a daily fee basis, broadly equivalent to the current annual salary or 
pro rata for part time working. The exact details are subject to agreement between 
the Commission and the Ministry of Justice.
Non-executive directors are paid a daily fee which is reviewed annual y in the light 
of increases in the Retail Price Index.
Salaries of the Chief Executive and Directors are set by the Remuneration 
Committee. Membership comprises the Chairman of the Commission, the non-
executive directors and two Commissioners. The Committee takes into account 
HM Treasury pay growth limits, affordability, and performance in determining 
annual salary increases.
Service contracts
Commissioners are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime 
Minister, one of whom is appointed by the Queen as Chairman. Appointments may 
be ful -time or part-time, and are for a fixed period of not longer than five years. 
Retiring Commissioners are eligible for re-appointment, provided that no person 
may hold office for a continuous period which is longer than ten years.
Non-executive directors are office holders appointed for a fixed term of five years, 
which may be renewed. The posts are non-pensionable.
The Chief Executive and Directors are employed on permanent contracts of 
employment with a notice period of three months. Normal pensionable age 
under the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme is 60 for Classic and Premium 
members, and 65 for Nuvos and Alpha members. Further details of the pension 
schemes are provided in later in this report and note 4 to the accounts. Early 
termination, other than for misconduct, would result in the individual receiving 
compensation as set out in the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.
Remuneration (salary, benefits in kind and pensions)
The fol owing sections provide details of the remuneration and pension interests 
of Board members, i.e. Commissioners, the Chief Executive, Directors and 
non-executive directors. The table below contains details for Commissioners 
during the currency of their Board membership only. These details have been 
subject to audit.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Mr Richard Foster CBE1


Ms Penelope Barrett 
[to 28.05.14]


Mrs Liz Calderbank1 


Mr James England


Miss Julie Goulding1


Ms Celia Hughes1 [to 28.05.14 
and from 01.04.15]


Mr Stephen Leach1 
[from 01.05.14 to 28.05.14 and 


from 01.04.15]
Ms Alexandra Marks1


Dr Sharon Persaud1 [to 28.05.14 
and from 01.04.15]


Mr Andrew Rennison1 [to 
28.05.14 and from 01.04.15]


Mr David James Smith


Mr Ewen Smith1


Mr Ranjit Sondhi1 [to 28.05.14 
and from 01.04.15]


Non-executive directors
Mr Jonathan Baume


Ms Caroline Corby 


Dr Margaret Semple


Miss Karen Kneller


Mr Colin Albert [to 31.08.14]


Mrs Sally Berlin 


Mr Ian Brooks [from 12.11.15]
Mr Justin Rees [from 01.04.15 to 


‘Salary’ includes gross salary or remuneration.
Note 1 – The Chairman and Commissioners indicated are part time.
None of the Commissioners, Chief Executive, Directors or non-executive 
directors was entitled to a bonus in the current or previous year, and there is no 
performance related component to salaries.
The monetary value of benefits-in-kind covers any benefits provided by the 
Commission and treated by HM Revenue and Customs as a taxable emolument. 
Benefits relate to costs incurred to enable a part-time Commissioner to work in the 
Commission’s office in Birmingham, and for the non-executive directors to attend 
meetings in the Commission’s office and elsewhere as necessary. These costs 
are reimbursed to Commissioners and the non-executive directors or incurred on 

their behalf free of tax and national insurance, and the amounts disclosed above 
include the income tax and national insurance contributions which are paid by the 
Commission. The total net costs actual y incurred on behalf of the Commissioner 
and the non-executive directors or reimbursed to them in the year was £14,486 
(2014/15 – £11,608).
Pay multiples
Reporting bodies are required to disclose the relationship between the 
remuneration of the highest-paid director in their organisation and the median 
remuneration of the organisation’s workforce.
2015/16 2014/15
Band of highest paid Board member’s total remuneration [£000]
Median total remuneration
Remuneration ranged from £12,000 to £94,000 (2014/15 £13,000 – £94,000).
Total remuneration includes salary, but does not include severance payments, 
employer pension contributions and the cash equivalent transfer value of 
These details have been subject to audit.
Pension arrangements
Commissioners appointed prior to 2012/13 are entitled to a pension and may 
choose pension arrangements broadly by analogy with the Principal Civil Service 
Pension Schemes. They are entitled to receive such benefits from their date 
of appointment. 
Commissioners’ pension arrangements are unfunded, and the Commission is 
responsible for paying retirement benefits as they fall due. Contributions were paid 
by Commissioners at the rate of 7.35% of pensionable earnings.
Pension benefits for the Chief Executive and Directors are provided through the 
Civil Service pension arrangements. From 1st April 2015, a new pension scheme 
for civil servants was introduced – the Civil Servants and Others Pension Scheme 
or alpha, which provides benefits on a career average basis with a normal pension 
age equal to the member’s State Pension Age (or 65 if higher). From that date al  
newly appointed civil servants and the majority of those already in service joined 
alpha. Prior to that date, civil servants participated in the Principal Civil Service 
Pension Scheme (PCSPS). The PCSPS has four sections: 3 providing benefits on 
a final salary basis (classic, premium or classic plus) with a normal pension age 
of 60; and one providing benefits on a whole career basis (nuvos) with a normal 
pension age of 65.
These statutory arrangements are unfunded with the cost of benefits met by 
monies voted by Parliament each year. Pensions payable under classic, premium, 
classic plus, nuvos and alpha are increased annual y in line with Pensions Increase 
legislation. Existing members of the PCSPS who were within 10 years of their 
normal pension age on 1st April 2012 remained in the PCSPS after 1st April 
2015. Those who were between ten and 13 years and 5 months from their 
normalpension age on 1st April 2012 will switch to alpha sometime between 
1st June 2015 and 1st February 2022. All members who switch into alpha have 
their PCSPS benefits “banked”, with those with earlier benefits in one of the final 
salary sections of the PCSPS having those benefits based on their final salary 
when they leave alpha. (The pension figures quoted in this report show pension 
earned in PCSPS or alpha – as appropriate. Where the individual has benefits in 
both the PCSPS and alpha the figure quoted is the combined value of their benefits 
in the two schemes.) Members joining from October 2002 may opt for either 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
the appropriate defined benefit arrangement or a “money purchase” stakeholder 
pension with an employer contribution (partnership pension account).
Employee contributions are salary-related and range between 3% and 8.05% of 
pensionable earnings for members of classic (and members of alpha who were 
members of classic immediately before joining alpha) and 4.6% and 8.05% for 
members of premium, classic plus, nuvos and all other members of alpha. Benefits 
in classic accrue at the rate of 1/80th of final pensionable earnings for each 
year of service. In addition, a lump sum equivalent to three years initial pension 
is payable on retirement. For premium, benefits accrue at the rate of 1/60th of 
final pensionable earnings for each year of service. Unlike classic, there is no 
automatic lump sum. Classic plus is essential y a hybrid with benefits for service 
before 1st October 2002 calculated broadly per classic and benefits for service 
from October 2002 worked out as in premium. In nuvos a member builds up a 
pension based on his or her pensionable earnings during their period of scheme 
membership. At the end of the scheme year (31st March) the member’s earned 
pension account is credited with 2.3% of their pensionable earnings in that 
scheme year and the accrued pension is uprated in line with Pensions Increase 
legislation. Benefits in alpha build up in a similar way to nuvos, except that the 
accrual rate is 2.32%. In all cases members may opt to give up (commute) pension 
for a lump sum up to the limits set by the Finance Act 2004. 
The partnership pension account is a stakeholder pension agreement. The 
employer makes a basic contribution of between 3% and 12.5% up to September 
2015 and 8% and 14.75% from 1st October 2015 (depending on the age of the 
member) into a stakeholder pension product chosen by the employee from a panel 
of providers. The employee does not have to contribute, but where they do make 
contributions, the employer will match these up to a limit of 3% of pensionable 
salary (in addition to the employer’s basic contribution). Employers also contribute 
a further 0.8% of pensionable salary up to 30th September 2015 and 0.5% of 
pensionable salary from 1st October 2015 to cover the cost of central y-provided 
risk benefit cover (death in service and ill health retirement).
The accrued pension quoted is the pension the member is entitled to receive when 
they reach pension age, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the 
scheme if they are already at or over pension age. Pension age is 60 for members 
of classic, premium and classic plus, 65 for members of nuvos, and the higher 
of 65 or State Pension Age for members of alpha. (The pension figures quoted 
for individuals show pension earned in PCSPS or alpha – as appropriate. Where 
the individual has benefits in both the PCSPS and alpha the figure quoted is the 
combined value of their benefits in the two schemes, but note that part of that 
pension may be payable from different ages). 
Further details about the Civil Service pension arrangements can be found at the 
Cash equivalent transfer values
A Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) is the actuarial y assessed capitalised 
value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point 
in time. The benefits valued are member’s accrued benefits and any contingent 
spouse’s pension payable from the scheme. A CETV is a payment made by a 
pension scheme or arrangement to secure pension benefits in another pension 
scheme or arrangement when the member leaves a scheme and chooses to 
transferthe benefits accrued in their former scheme. The pension figures shown 
relate to the benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of their 
total membership of the pension scheme, not just their service in a senior 
capacity to which disclosure applies. CETVs are calculated in accordance with 
The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 
2008 and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits 
resulting from Lifetime Al owance Tax which may be due when pension benefits 
are taken.

The figures include the value of any pension benefit in another scheme or 
arrangement which the member has transferred to the Civil Service pension 
arrangements. They also include any additional pension benefit accrued to the 
member as a result of their purchasing additional pension or years of pension 
service in the scheme at their own cost. CETVs are worked out in accordance with 
The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 
2008 and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits 
arising from Lifetime Al owance Tax which may be due when pension benefits are 
Real increase in CETV
The real increase is the increase due to additional benefit accrual (i.e. as a result of 
salary changes and service) that is funded by the employer. It will be smal er than 
the difference between the start and end CETVs because it does not include any 
increase in the value of pension due to inflation or due to the contributions paid 
by the employee or the value of any benefits transferred in from another pension 
scheme. Nor does it include any increases (or decreases) because of any changes 
during the year in the actuarial factors used to calculate CETVs.
There will be an even greater disparity than usual in the 2015/16 accounts 
between the start /end CETV differences and the corresponding real increases. 
This is because the actuarial factors used to calculate CETVs changed during the 
year and, consequently, CETV figures increased even without any further pension 
accrual. The real increase calculation uses common actuarial factors at the start 
and end of the period so that it disregards any changes of factors and focuses only 
on the increase that is funded by the employer.
Pension benefits
These details have been subject to audit.
Real increase/ 
Accrued pension at 
(decrease) in pension 
normal retirement age 
and related lump sum 
Real increase/ 
at 31/3/16 and related 
at normal retirement 
CETV at 
CETV at 
(decrease) in 
lump sum
Mr James England
Miss Julie Goulding
Mr Ewen Smith
Miss Karen Kneller – Chief 
30-35 plus
0-2.5 plus
90-95 lump sum
2.5-5 lump sum
Mrs Sally Berlin – Director of 
15-20 plus
Casework Operations
5-10 lump sum
0-2.5 lump sum
Mr Ian Brooks – Director 
of Finance and Corporate 
1  Mr Richard Foster is entitled to a pension but has not opted-in.
2  The non-executive directors are not entitled to pension benefits.
3  Commissioners appointed after 2012/13 are not entitled to pension benefits.
4  Total accrued pension may include benefits arising from transfers-in from other schemes, and may also 
be augmented by additional voluntary contributions paid by the individual.
5  CETVs are calculated using common market valuation factors for the start and end of the period, which 
may be different from the factors used in the previous year. Consequently, the CETV at 31/3/15 shown in 
the table above may differ from the CETV at 31/3/15 as disclosed in the 2014/15 remuneration report.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Staff Report
Our staff numbers have remained relatively stable during 2015/16 with little 
recruitment activity. As at 31st March 2016, there were 83 (80 2014/15) 
permanent members of staff making up a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) of 76 
(79 2014/15). They included 76 (79 2014/15) directly employed staff. At the 
end of 2015/16 there were 12 Commissioners (FTE 8.0), including the Chair, 
Richard Foster (12 and FTE 8.0 2014/15). These details have been subject to audit. 
At the 31st March 2016 the Commission had 50 female and 34 male staff, seven 
male and five female Commissioners and two female and one male non-executive 
Full details of staff costs, which have been subject to audit, are presented in the 
table below:
2015/16 2014/15 
Salaries and emoluments
Social security contributions
Pension costs
Total Commissioners cost
Non-Executive Directors
Salaries and emoluments
Social security contributions
Total Non-Executive Directors cost
– Staff with permanent employment contracts
    Salaries and emoluments
    Social security contributions
    Pension costs
– Other staff (contract, agency/temporary)
    Salaries and emoluments
Total Staff cost
We aim for sickness absence within the Commission to be less than 7.5 
days per person (FTE) per year (see Key Performance Indicator on page 87). 
Disappointingly, the actual average in 2015/16 was 8.7 days per person. In 2014/15 
it had been 7.8 days per person.
Because we have fewer than 100 staff, a relatively small number of long term 
absences can have a significant impact on our sickness absence KPI. During 
2015/16, five members of staff needed periods of more than 20 consecutive days 
sickness absence (a widely-used definition “long-term sickness absence”). If they 
are removed from the calculation, the average sickness absence figure for the year 
fal s to 5.3 days.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission operates a wide range of staff policies, 
which are regularly reviewed, designed to provide a working environment that 
supports staff and the productivity and effectivenesss of our work. While not an 
exhaustive list, the Commission has policies that support:
z Dignitiy at Work.
z Equality and diversity.
z Fair recruitment including a Guaranteed Interview Scheme for applicants who 
identify as disabled.
z Sickness absence and absence management.

z Performance appraisal.
z Training and development, including capability.
z Flextime working.
Line managers and staff are supported in their awareness of the policies by 
appropriate training, routine reminders and the involvement of Human Resources 
specialists in matters affecting staff working conditions. 
As mentioned at page 37 of this report, we provided managers within the 
organisation with specialist training to help them manage staff absence. 
We anticipate that training, provided in March 2016, will have a positive impact 
on the figures for 2016/17.
Expenditure on Consultancy
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has incurred no consultancy expenditure 
in 2015/16.
Off Payroll Contractors
During the current period, the Criminal Cases Review Commission has reviewed 
the tax arrangements of all its’ off-payroll appointments. All contractors within the 
scope of this exercise have been required to provide evidence of tax compliance. 
There have been no instances of non-tax compliant off-payroll engagements as at 
31st March 2016. Further details of off-payroll engagements can be found in the 
Ministry of Justice consolidated accounts. 
Compensation for loss of office
None of the Commissioners, non-executive directors or senior management 
received any compensation for loss of office in the year (£0 2014/15).
These details have been subject to audit.
Exit Packages
There have been no exit packages in 2015-16 (£0 2014/15).
These details have been subject to audit.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Parliamentary Accountability and Audit Report
Regularity of Expenditure
The Criminal Cases Review Commission operates within a framework agreement 
between the sponsor department and the Commission, which sets out the 
financial transaction limits to which the Commission may operate without further 
referral to the Ministry of Justice. During the course of 2015-16, the MoJ invoked 
additional expenditure controls on certain types of expenditure, with which the 
Commission complied in ful . The Commission also operates to the standards set 
out in HM Treasury’s “Managing Public Money”, and can confirm no irregularity 
with any of the provisions contained therein. 
Losses and Special Payments
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has not incurred any losses or made any 
special payments in the year 2015-16
This has been subject to audit. 
Fees and Charges
The Criminal Cases Review Commission does not levy and fees or charges. 
This has been subject to audit. 
Remote Contingent Liabilities
International Accounting Standard 37 (IAS 37) sets out the requirements for 
provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets. Parliamentary reporting 
also requires that organisations disclose remote contingent liabilities. The Criminal 
Cases Review Commission has no remote contingent liabilities. 
Long Term Expenditure Trends
As part of the Spending Review Process in 2015 (SR15), the Ministry of Justice 
agreed a long term settlement of resource and capital budgets for the period up 
until 2020/21. The Criminal Cases Review Commission works with the Ministry of 
Justice to agree its budgets on an annual basis. 
Karen Kneller  
Chief Executive and Accounting Officer 
28th June 2016

The Certificate and Report of the Comptroller and Auditor 
General to the Houses of Parliament
I certify that I have audited the financial statements of the Criminal Cases Review 
Commission for the year ended 31 March 2016 under the Criminal Appeals Act 
1995. The financial statements comprise: the Statements of Comprehensive 
Net Expenditure, Financial Position, Cash Flows, Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity; 
and the related notes. These financial statements have been prepared under the 
accounting policies set out within them. I have also audited the information in the 
Remuneration and Staff Report and the Parliamentary Accountability disclosures 
that is described in that report as having been audited.
Respective responsibilities of the Accounting Officer and auditor
As explained more ful y in the Statement of Accounting Officer’s Responsibilities, 
the Accounting Officer are responsible for the preparation of the financial 
statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view. My 
responsibility is to audit, certify and report on the financial statements in 
accordance with the Criminal Appeals Act 1995. I conducted my audit in 
accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland). Those 
standards require me and my staff to comply with the Auditing Practices Board’s 
Ethical Standards for Auditors.
Scope of the audit of the financial statements
An audit involves obtaining evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the 
financial statements sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the financial 
statements are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or 
error. This includes an assessment of: whether the accounting policies are 
appropriate to the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s circumstances and 
have been consistently applied and adequately disclosed; the reasonableness of 
significant accounting estimates made by the Criminal Cases Review Commission; 
and the overall presentation of the financial statements. In addition I read al  
the financial and non-financial information in the Annual Report to identify 
material inconsistencies with the audited financial statements and to identify 
any information that is apparently material y incorrect based on, or material y 
inconsistent with, the knowledge acquired by me in the course of performing the 
audit. If I become aware of any apparent material misstatements or inconsistencies 
I consider the implications for my certificate.
I am required to obtain evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the 
expenditure and income recorded in the financial statements have been applied to 
the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the 
financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them.
Opinion on regularity
In my opinion, in all material respects the expenditure and income recorded in the 
financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament 
and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the 
authorities which govern them.
Opinion on financial statements 
In my opinion:
z the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the Criminal 
Cases Review Commission’s affairs as at 31 March 2016 and of the net 
expenditure for the year then ended; and 
z the financial statements have been properly prepared in accordance with the 
Criminal Appeals Act 1995 and Secretary of State directions issued thereunder.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Opinion on other matters
In my opinion:
z the parts of the Remuneration and Staff Report and the Parliamentary 
Accountability disclosures to be audited have been properly prepared in 
accordance with Secretary of State directions made under the Criminal 
Appeals Act 1995; and
z the information given in the Performance Report and Accountability Report for 
the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared is consistent 
with the financial statements.
Matters on which I report by exception
I have nothing to report in respect of the fol owing matters which I report to you if, 
in my opinion:
z adequate accounting records have not been kept or returns adequate for my 
audit have not been received from branches not visited by my staff; or
z the financial statements and the parts of the Remuneration and Staff Report 
and the Parliamentary Accountability disclosures to be audited are not in 
agreement with the accounting records and returns; or
z I have not received all of the information and explanations I require for my 
audit; or
z the Governance Statement does not reflect compliance with HM Treasury’s 
I have no observations to make on these financial statements.
Sir Amyas C E Morse
Comptrol er and Auditor General 
30th June 2016
National Audit Office
157-197 Buckingham Palace Road

Section Three
Financial Statements
This section presents the Commission’s final audited accounts for the period 1st April 2015 to 31st March 
2016 in Financial Statements and Notes to the Accounts.
Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure
for the year ended 31 March 2016
Staff Costs
Depreciation & Amortisation
9, 10
Other Expenditure
Total Expenditure
Income from Activities
Net Expenditure
Interest Payable
Net Expenditure after Interest
Other Comprehensive Expenditure
Pensions: actuarial losses
Total Comprehensive Expenditure
The notes on pages 65 to 79 form part of these accounts.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Statement of Financial Position
as at 31 March 2016
31 March 2016
31 March 2015
Non-current assets
Property, plant & equipment
Intangible assets
Trade & other receivables

Total non-current assets
Current assets
Trade & other receivables

Total current assets
Total assets
Current liabilities
Trade payables & other current liabilities
Non-current assets less net current liabilities
Non-current liabilities
Pension liabilities
Total non-current liabilities
Assets less total liabilities
Taxpayers' equity
General reserve
Total taxpayers' equity
The notes on pages 65 to 79 form part of these accounts.
The financial statements on pages 61 to 64 were approved by the Board on 28th June, and were signed on 
behalf of the Criminal Cases Review Commission by:
Karen Kneller  
Chief Executive and Accounting Officer 
28th June 2016

Statement of Cash Flows
for the year ended 31 March 2016
Cash flows from operating activities
Net cash outflow from operating activities
Cash flows from investing activities
Purchase of property, plant and equipment
Purchase of intangible assets
Total cash outflow from investing activities
Cash flows from financing activities
Capital Grant in Aid
Revenue Grant in Aid
Total financing
Net increase in cash
Cash at beginning of year
Cash at end of year
The notes on pages 65 to 79 form part of these accounts.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Statement of Changes in Taxpayers' Equity
for the year ended 31 March 2016
Balance at 1 April 2014
Changes in taxpayers' equity for 2014-15
Total comprehensive expenditure for 2014-15
Grant from sponsor department
Reversal of notional transactions:  notional expenditure
Balance at 31 March 2015
Changes in taxpayers' equity for 2015-16
Total comprehensive expenditure for 2015-16
Grant from sponsor department
Reversal of notional transactions:  notional expenditure
Balance at 31 March 2016
The notes on pages 65 to 79 form part of these accounts.

Notes to the Accounts
1  Accounting Policies
Basis of Accounts
These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the Accounts Direction given by 
the Secretary of State for Justice with the consent of the Treasury in accordance with paragraph 9(2) of 
Schedule 1 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. The Accounts Direction requires the financial statements to be 
prepared in accordance with the 2015/16 Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) issued by HM 
Treasury. The accounting policies contained in the FReM apply International Financial Reporting Standards 
(IFRS) as adapted or interpreted for the public sector context. Where the FReM permits a choice of accounting 
policy, the accounting policy which is judged to be most appropriate to the particular circumstances of the 
Commission for the purpose of giving a true and fair view has been selected. The particular policies adopted 
by the Commission are described below. They have been applied consistently in dealing with items that are 
considered material to the accounts.
These financial statements have been prepared under the historical cost convention.
Changes in Accounting Policy and Disclosures
a)  Changes in Accounting Policies
There have been no changes in accounting policies during the period ended 31st March 2016.
b)  New and Amended Standards Adopted
IFRS 13 “Fair Value Measurement” is effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2015, and 
is applied prospectively in these accounts. This standard defines fair value, sets out a uniform framework 
for measuring fair value and provides related disclosure requirements. The aim of this standard is to 
create a consistent methodology for the calculation of fair values that is to be applied across other IFRSs. 
In conjuction with the release of IFRS 13, the FReM have adapted and interpreted IAS 16 “Property, Plant and 
Equipment” and IAS 38 “Intangible Assets” for public sector application. These changes have been effective 
from 1 April 2015 and have had no impact on the accounts.
Going Concern
The Statement of Financial Position at 31 March 2016 shows negative total taxpayers’ equity of £6,285,000. 
This reflects the inclusion of liabilities fal ing due in future years which, to the extent that they are not to 
be met from the Commission’s other sources of income, may only be met by future Grants-in-Aid from the 
Commission’s sponsoring department, the Ministry of Justice. This is because, under the normal conventions 
applying to parliamentary control over income and expenditure, such grants may not be issued in advance 
of need.
Grant in Aid for 2016/17, taking into account the amounts required to meet the Commission’s liabilities fal ing 
due in that year, has already been included in the sponsor department’s Main Estimates for that year, which 
have been approved by Parliament, and there is no reason to believe that the department’s sponsorship and 
future parliamentary approval wil  not be forthcoming.
The triennial review conducted by the Ministry of Justice during 2012/13 confirmed that the functions of 
the Commission should be retained unchanged, and that the Commission should continue in its current 
form. It is accordingly considered appropriate to adopt a going concern basis for the preparation of these 
financial statements.
Grant in Aid
Grant in Aid received is credited direct to the General Reserve in accordance with the FReM.
Income is recognised on an accruals basis.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Notional expenditure
Accommodation costs are borne by the Ministry of Justice on the Commission’s behalf. To enable the 
accounts to show a true and fair view, and to comply with the FReM, such expenditure is included in the 
Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure as notional expenditure under the appropriate expense 
headings, with a full analysis shown in note 18 to the accounts. An equivalent credit entry to finance the 
notional expenditure is recognised in the Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity.
Non-current Assets
Assets are capitalised as non-current assets if they are intended for use on a continuing basis and their 
original purchase cost, on an individual or grouped basis, is £500 or more.
Depreciated historical cost is used as a proxy for fair value of all non-current assets due to short lives and/or 
low values.
Depreciation and Amortisation
Depreciation or amortisation is provided on all non-current assets on a straight-line basis to write off the cost 
or valuation evenly over the asset’s estimated useful life as fol ows:
IT hardware/development 
eight years
Software systems and licences 
eight years
Furniture and fittings 
10 years
Office equipment 
10 years
Refurbishment costs 
over the remaining term of the lease
Assets under development 
no depreciation as assets are not yet in use
The Commission annual y performs an asset review across significant asset categories and, if indicators of 
impairment exist, the assets in question are tested for impairment by comparing their carrying value of those 
assets with their recoverable amounts. When an asset’s economic carrying value decreases as a result of 
a permanent diminution in the value of the asset due to clear consumption of economic benefit or service 
potential, the decrease is charged to net operating costs on the SoCNE.
Employee Benefits
Employee Leave Accrual
An accrual is made for untaken annual leave. Employees accrue one twelfth of their annual paid leave 
entitlement for each month worked which is calculated as paid time owing to the employee until the leave is 
actually taken. The value accrued also includes an allowance for the associated employers national insurance 
and employers pension contributions.
(i)  Staff pensions
Pension benefits are provided through the Civil Service pension arrangements. From 1 April 2015 a new 
pension scheme for civil servants was introduced – the Civil Servants and Others Pension Scheme, or alpha, 
which provides benefits on a career average basis with a normal pension age equal to the member’s State 
Pension Age (or 65 if higher). From that date all newly appointed civil servants and the majority of those 
already in service joined alpha. Prior to that date, civil servants participated in the Principal Civil Service 
Pension Scheme (PCSPS). The pension arrangements are managed independently from the Commission as 
part of a multi-employer defined benefit scheme, i.e. one where the benefits are based on an employee’s 
earnings, rather than on contributions made by them and the employer. The scheme is unfunded, but 
underwritten by Government, and the Commission is unable to identify its share of the underlying liabilities. 
In accordance with IAS 19 (Employee Benefits), the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure is charged 
with contributions made in the year.
(i )  Commissioners’ pensions
Commissioners appointed before 2012/13 are provided with individual defined benefit schemes which are 
broadly by analogy with the PCSPS. These schemes are unfunded, and the Commission is liable for the 
future payment of pensions. The cost of benefits accruing during the year is charged against staff costs in the 

Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. The increase in the present value of the schemes’ liabilities 
arising from the passage of time is charged as interest payable to the Statement of Comprehensive Net 
Expenditure after operating expenditure. Actuarial gains and losses are recognised as Other Comprehensive 
Expenditure in the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.
The Statement of Financial Position includes the actuarial y calculated scheme liabilities, discounted at the 
pensions discount rate as prescribed by HM Treasury to reflect expected long term returns.
Operating Leases
Payments made under operating leases (net of any incentives received from the lessor) are charged to the 
Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure on a straight-line basis over the period of the lease. Operating 
lease incentives (such as rent-free periods or contributions by the lessor to the lessee’s relocation costs) 
are treated as an integral part of the net consideration agreed for the use of the leased asset and are spread 
appropriately over the lease term.
Provision is made for the estimated costs of returning the office premises occupied under a Memorandum of 
Terms of Occupation (MOTO) to an appropriate condition. The estimated amount is adjusted to take account 
of actual inflation to date when the cash flow is expected to occur (i.e. the end of the period of occupation), 
and then discounted to the present value. The rates used are the short and medium term official inflation and 
nominal discount rates for general provisions advised by HM Treasury.
In previous years some small building alterations have been made which gave access to future economic 
benefits, therefore a non-current asset has also been created corresponding to the amount of the provision, 
in accordance with IAS 37 (Provisions, Contingent Assets and Contingent Liabilities). This noncurrent asset 
is amortised over the period of the MOTO on a straight line basis, and the amortisation charged to the 
Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. The interest cost arising from the unwinding of the discount is 
also charged each year as interest payable to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.
Contingent liabilities
Contingent liabilities are not recognised in the financial statements, but disclosure is made in the notes in 
accordance with IAS 37 unless the possibility of an outflow of funds is remote.
The Commission is not eligible to register for VAT and all costs are shown inclusive of VAT. The Commission is 
registered with HM Revenue & Customs for corporation tax. There was no taxable income in the year ended 
31 March 2016.
Standards in issue but not yet effective
The Commission has reviewed the IFRSs in issue but not yet effective, to determine if it needs to make any 
disclosures in respect of those new IFRSs that are or will be applicable. References to ‘new IFRSs’ includes 
new interpretations and any new amendments to IFRSs and interpretations. It has been determined that 
there are no new IFRSs which are relevant to the Commission and which will have a significant impact on the 
Commission’s financial statements.
2  Grant in Aid
Received for revenue expenditure
Received for capital expenditure
Grant in Aid has been received in accordance with the Ministry of Justice main estimate Part III note E as 
adjusted by the supplementary estimate.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
3  Staff Costs
Salaries and emoluments
Social security contributions
Pension costs
Total Commissioners cost
Non-Executive Directors
Salaries and emoluments
Social security contributions

Total Non-Executive Directors cost
– Staff with permanent employment contracts
  Salaries and emoluments
  Social security contributions
  Pension costs
– Other staff (contract, agency/temporary)
  Salaries and emoluments
Total Staff cost
There were no exit packages in 2015/16 (2014/15 nil).

4 Pensions 
(i) Staff
Pension benefits are provided through the Civil Service pension arrangements. From 1 April 2015 a new 
pension scheme for civil servants was introduced – the Civil Servants and Others Pension Scheme, or 
alpha, which provides benefits on a career average basis with a normal pension age equal to the member’s 
State Pension Age (or 65 if higher). From that date all newly appointed civil servants and the majority of 
those already in service joined alpha. Prior to that date, civil servants participated in the Principal Civil 
Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). Existing members of the PCSPS who were within 10 years of their normal 
pension age on 1 April 2012 remained in the PCSPS after 1 April 2015. those who were between 10 years 
and 13 years and 5 months from their normal pension age on 1 April 2012 will switch into alpha sometime 
between 1 June 2015 and 1 February 2022. These statutory arrangements are part of an unfunded multi-
employer defined benefit scheme but the Commission is unable to identify its share of the underlying 
liabilities. The last formal actuarial valuation undertaken for the PSCPS was as at 31 March 2012. The next 
valuation of the scheme is due to be undertaken as at 31 March 2016. Details can be found in the Government 
Actuary’s Department Report by the Scheme Actuary, “PCSPS: Actuarial valuation as at 31 March 2012”. 
The cost of the Commission’s pension contributions to the Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes is included 
in employment costs. For 2015/16, employers’ contributions of £490,000 (2014/15 £449,000) were payable 
to the PCSPS at one of four rates in the range 20% to 24.5% (2014/15 16.7% to 24.3%) of pensionable 
pay, based on salary bands. The Scheme Actuary reviews employer contributions usual y every four years 
fol owing a full scheme valuation. The contribution rates are set to meet the cost of the benefits accruing 
during 2015/16 to be paid when the member retires and not the benefits paid during this period to existing 
pensioners. The next revision to the employer contribution rate is expected to take effect from 1 April 2019.
Employees can opt to open a partnership pension account, a stakeholder pension with an employer 
contribution. Employers’ contributions of £28,000 (2014/15 £31,000) were paid to one or more of the panel 
of two appointed stakeholder pension providers. Employer contributions are age-related and ranged from 3% 
to 12.5% of pensionable pay up to 30 September 2015 and 8% to 14.75% from October 2015. Employers also 
match employee contributions up to 3% of pensionable pay. In addition, employer also contribute a further 
0.8% of pensionable salary up to 30 September 2015 and 0.5% of pensionable salary from 1 October 2015 to 
cover the cost of central y-provided risk benefit cover (death in service and ill health retirement) amounting to 
contributions of £2,000 (2014/15 £2,000).
There were no outstanding contributions due to the partnership pension providers at the Statement of 
Financial Position date, nor any prepaid amounts.
(i ) Commissioners
Commissioners appointed before November 2012 were offered pension arrangements broadly by analogy 
with the Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes from their date of appointment.
Commissioners’ pension arrangements are unfunded, and the Commission is responsible for paying 
retirement benefits as they fall due. Contributions are paid by Commissioners at the rate of 7.35% of 
pensionable earnings.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
The value of the scheme liabilities for the current and four previous years are as fol ows:
Liability in respect of
  Active members
  Deferred pensioners
  Current pensioners
Total present value of scheme 
The scheme liabilities have been valued by the Government Actuary’s Department using the Projected Unit 
Method. The main actuarial assumptions are as fol ows:
Discount rate
Rate of increase in salaries
Price inflation
Rate of increase in pensions (deferred 
and in payment)
The mortality assumptions use the CMI SAPS S1 tables, which give the fol owing life expectancies at 
31 March 2016
31 March 2015
Current pensioners
  At age 60
  At age 65
Future pensioners
  At age 60
  At age 65
The main financial assumptions are as prescribed by HM Treasury. The principal assumptions adopted by the 
Commission relate to earnings inflation and mortality, and the sensitivity of the valuation of the liability to 
these assumptions is set out below.
An increase of one year in the life expectancies would increase the present value of the scheme liability by 
approximately 3% or £211,000.
An increase of 0.5% in the rate of increase in salaries would not affect the final pensionable earnings figure on 
which the benefit calculations have been based.
Increasing the discount rate by 0.5% pa would result in a corresponding decrease in liabilities of 
approximately £448,000 or 7.0%.
Increasing the CPI inflation assumption by 0.5% pa would result in a corresponding increase in liabilities of 
approximately £448,000 or 7.0%.

The fol owing amounts have been recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the 
Current service cost
Commissioners’ contributions retained
Total charge to Staff Costs
Interest on pension scheme liabilities
Total charge to Interest Payable
The estimated current service cost for the next year is 52.7% of pensionable salary. Commissioners’ 
contributions retained are expected to be £13,000 and the expected charge to Staff Costs is £73,000. 
The movement in scheme liabilities is analysed as fol ows:
Present value of scheme liabilities at start of year
Current service cost
Interest cost
Actuarial (gains)/losses
Benefits paid
Present value of scheme liabilities at end of year
Cumulative actuarial gains and losses recognised in taxpayers’ equity are as fol ows:
Loss at start of year
Net actuarial losses/(gains) recognised in the year
Loss at end of year
Actuarial gains and losses recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year and 
the previous four years are set out below, shown as an amount and as a percentage of the present value of 
the scheme liabilities at the Statement of Financial Position date:
Experience (gains)/losses 
on pension liabilities
Changes in demographic 
and financial assumptions
Net actuarial losses/

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
5  Other Expenditure 
Accommodation – operating lease
IT costs
Travel, subsistence and external case-related costs
Office supplies
Training and other HR
Case storage
Information and publications
Audit fee – external
Payroll and pension costs
Office services
Legal and professional costs
Loss on disposal of non-current assets
Library and reference materials
Audit fee – internal
Equipment rental under operating lease

6  Interest Payable
Interest on pension scheme liabilities
7  Income from Activities
Kalisher Trust internships


During 2015/16, the Commission created two short-term internship posts, which was partial y funded by the 
Kalisher Trust. One ended in 2015. 

8  Analysis of Net Expenditure by Programme & Administration Budget
Programme Administration
  Staff costs
   Depreciation  & 


   Accommodation  – 
operating lease

  Other expenditure
Total Expenditure
Income from activities


Net Expenditure
Interest Payable


Net Expenditure after 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
9  Property, Plant & Equipment
Plant and 
Furniture and  IT Hardware
Cost/valuation at 1 April 2015



Cost/valuation at 31 March 2016
Depreciation at 1 April 2015
Charged during the year

Depreciation on disposals



Depreciation at 31 March 2016
Carrying amount at 31 March 2016
Carrying amount at 31 March 2015
Cost/valuation at 1 April 2014




Cost/valuation at 31 March 2015
Depreciation at 1 April 2014
Charged during the year
Depreciation on disposals


Depreciation at 31 March 2015
Carrying amount at 31 March 2015
Carrying amount at 31 March 2014
All assets are owned by the Commission. 

10  Intangible Non-Current Assets
Assets Under 
Cost/valuation at 1 April 2015

Cost/valuation at 31 March 2016
Amortisation at 1 April 2015
Charged during the year
Amortisation on disposals

Amortisation at 31 March 2016
Carrying amount at 31 March 2016
Carrying amount at 31 March 2015
Cost/valuation at 1 April 2014

Cost/valuation at 31 March 2015
Amortisation at 1 April 2014
Charged during the year
Amortisation on disposals 

Amortisation at 31 March 2015
Carrying amount at 31 March 2015
Carrying amount at 31 March 2014
All assets are owned by the Commission.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
11  Other Receivables
31 March 
31 March 
Amounts fal ing due within one year
Trade receivables

Travel loans to staff
Amounts fal ing due after more than one year


12  Cash & Cash Equivalents
31 March 
31 March 
Balance at 1 April
Net change in cash balances
Balance at 31 March
The fol owing balances at 31 March 2016 were held at:
Government Banking Service
Balance at 31 March
No cash equivalents were held at any time.
13  Trade Payables & other Current Liabilities
31 March 
31 March 
Amounts fal ing due within one year
Intra-government balances:
  UK taxation & social security
Trade payables
Capital accruals


14 Provisions
The movements in the provisions are analysed as fol ows:
Balance at 1 April 
Unwinding of discount
Balance at 31 March
The expected timing of discounted cash flows is as fol ows:
31 March 
31 March 
  Later than one year and not later than five years

  Later than five years
Balance at 31 March
15  Reconciliation of Net Expenditure to Net Cash Outflow from Operating Activities
Net expenditure after interest
Interest payable

Depreciation and amortisation
Loss on disposal of non-current assets
(Increase)/decrease in receivables
Increase in payables
Increase in provisions

Pension provision:
  Current service cost
  Benefits paid
Notional expenditure
Net cash outflow from operating activities
16  Capital Commitments
Capital commitments contracted for at 31 March 2016 were £nil (2015 £nil). 

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
17  Commitments under Operating Leases
At 31 March 2016 the Commission had the fol owing total future minimum lease payments under 
non-cancel able operating leases for each of the fol owing periods:
31 March 
31 March 
  Not later than one year
  Later than one year and not later than five years
  Later than five years

Total buildings
Total commitments under operating leases
The above commitment in respect of building leases relates to the Commission’s current office 
accommodation at St Philip’s Place, Birmingham. This is occupied under a Memorandum of Terms of 
Occupation (MOTO) issued in accordance with the Departmental Estate Occupancy Agreement for Crown 
Bodies. The MOTO is between the Ministry of Justice on behalf of the Commission and the Department for 
Communities and Local Government. The costs of occupation are payable by the Ministry of Justice, but are 
included in the Commission’s accounts as notional expenditure. Accordingly, the commitment shown above is 
also notional.
18 Notional Expenditure
The Ministry of Justice incurred costs in respect of accommodation on behalf of the Commission.
Notional expenditure
Other expenditure – incurred by MoJ:
  Accommodation – operating lease
Total notional other expenditure
Total notional expenditure
Items shown as notional expenditure are items of expenditure which would otherwise have been recognised 
in the financial statements in the current year if they had been incurred by the Commission.
19  Related Party Transactions
The Ministry of Justice is a related party to the Commission. During the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, 
the Ministry of Justice provided the Commission with Grant in Aid and made certain payments on behalf of 
the Commission disclosed in these financial statements and notes as notional expenditure.
In addition, the Commission has had a small number of transactions with other government departments and 
other central government bodies.
During the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, none of the Commissioners, key managerial staff or other 
related parties undertook any related party transactions.
20  Financial Instruments
IFRS 7 (Financial Instruments: Disclosures) requires disclosure of the significance of financial instruments 
for the entity’s financial position and performance, and the nature and extent of risks arising from financial 
instruments to which the entity is exposed, and how the entity manages those risks. Because of the largely 
non-trading nature of its activities and the way it is financed, the Commission is not exposed to the degree 
of financial risk faced by business entities. Moreover, financial instruments play a much more limited role in 

creating or changing risk than would be typical of the listed companies to which IAS 32 (Financial Instruments: 
Presentation), IAS 39 (Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement) and IFRS 7 mainly apply. The 
Commission has limited powers to borrow or invest funds and financial assets and liabilities are generated by 
day-to-day operational activities and are not held to change the risks facing the Commission in undertaking its 
The Commission is not therefore exposed to significant liquidity risks, interest rate risk or foreign currency 
21  Events after the Reporting Period
Events after the reporting period have been considered up to and including the date on which the accounts 
are authorised for issue. This is interpreted as the date of the audit certificate of the Comptrol er and Auditor 
The result of the referendum held on 23 June was in favour of the UK leaving the European Union. This is a 
non-adjusting event. A reasonable estimate of the financial effect of this event cannot be made.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Section Four
Tables and Appendices
Commission referrals to the appeal courts during 2015/16
CHINIE, Temesgen
Failure to produce a document contrary to 
section 2 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment 
of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004
WHITE, Mark 
Failed to give information as to the identity of 
the driver s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988
GRACIA, Michael
20-May-15 Assault Constable in execution of duty
20-May-15 NI – Causing an explosion, Unlawful 
possession of a firearm
29-May-15 Possession of a false document
Robbery and Handling stolen goods
Burglary, Aggravated burglary, 2 x GBH with 
Possession of false identity document with 
EMBLETON, Jonathan 807/10
HOOKER, Kenton
20-Aug-15 Al owing a dog to be ‘Dangerously Out of 
Control in a Public Place’, contrary to Section 
3(1) and (4) of the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991)
DUNN, James
24-Sep-15 Murder
NORI, Mohammed
1582/2012 24-Sep-15 Failure to produce a satisfactory immigration 
document contrary to section 2(1) Asylum and 
Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) 
Act 2004
WILLIAMSON, Simon 666/13
29-Sep-15 Common assault and Being drunk and 
disorderly in a public place
05-Oct-15 Offences arising from assaults
EVANS, Chedwyn
05-Oct-15 Rape
Possessing/Control ing Identity Documents 
with Intent contrary to section 4 of the 
Identity Documents Act 2010
22-Oct-15 Fraud and making off without payment
BURKE, Jeanette
Conspiracy to supply cocaine, a class A 
control ed drug Conspiracy to supply heroin, 
a class A control ed drug
12-Nov-15 Intent to Defraud Creditors of a Company 
contrary to s.458 of the Companies Act 2003 
x 3
19-Nov-15 Robbery
19-Nov-15 Distribution of indecent photographs of a 
child x 3 
Making indecent photographs of a child x 14 
Possession of indecent photographs of a child

15-Dec-15 Failing to identify the driver of a motor vehicle
Possession of an identity document with 
improper intent contrary to section 4(1) of the 
Identity Documents Act 2010
Count 2: Sexual Assault, contrary to section 3 
of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 
Count 3: Sexual Assault, contrary to section 3 
of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
Possession of false document
Conspiracy to supply Class A drugs 
Possession of cannabis with intent to supply
Possessing/Control ing Identity Documents 
with Intent contrary to section 4 of the 
Identity Documents Act 2010
KAMANGA, Patrick
Possession of a false identity document with 
02-Mar-16 Murder
08-Mar-16 Re-using a prohibited company name during 
the period 19th November 2001 to 14th June 
2002 contrary to s216(4) of the Insolvency 
Act 1986
WEINTROUB, Adrian 844/11
08-Mar-16 Acting as a director of a company with a 
prohibited company name without the leave 
of the Court between 6th April 2006 and 
29th October 2008 contrary to s216 of the 
Insolvency Act 1986
WEINTROUB, Jeremy 845/11
08-Mar-16 Acting as a director of a company with a 
prohibited company name without the leave 
of the Court between 6th April 2006 and 
29th October 2008 contrary to s216 of the 
Insolvency Act 1986
Commission referrals decided by appeal courts during 2015/163
Sentence  Outcome Appeal 
BENGUIT, Omar 19-Dec-12 Murder
05-Mar-14 Rape; Sexual assault x3
17-Mar-15 Possession of a false instrument; 
Attempting to obtain services by 
deception contrary to sec.1 (1) of the 
Criminal Attempts Act 1981
Using a false instrument (Passport) 
24-Mar-15 Failure to produce a satisfactory 
immigration document
24-Mar-15 Failure to produce a satisfactory 
immigration document
HILLMAN, Barry 28-Jan-15
3  U = Upheld, Q = Quashed, Ab = Abandoned

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
Sentence  Outcome Appeal 
20-Mar-15 Failure to produce a satisfactory 
immigration document
27-Oct-14 Assaulting an officer in the execution 
of his duty, contrary to s89 (1) of the 
Police Act 1996; Obstructing an officer 
in the execution of his duty, contrary 
to s47 Terrorism Act 2000
24-Sep-13 Rape
12-Nov-13 Rape x9
PETERSEN, Brian 16-Jun-14
Indecent Assault x4
14-Oct-14 Possession of false identity document 
with intent
20-May-15 Assault Constable in execution of duty
22-Apr-15 Failure to produce a document 
contrary to section 2 Asylum and 
Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, 
etc.) Act 2004
NANTHAKUMAR,  19-Dec-14 Murder; Causing grievous bodily harm 
with intent; Assault occasioning actual 
bodily harm
MIAH, Aziz
19-Dec-14 Murder; Causing grievous bodily harm 
with intent; Assault occasioning actual 
bodily harm
19-Dec-14 Murder; Causing grievous bodily harm 
with intent; Assault occasioning actual 
bodily harm
WHITE, Mark 
23-Apr-15 Between 14th January and 12th 
February 2010 at Sheffield failed to 
give information as to the identity of 
the driver. s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988
GEORGE, Aaron 07-Jul-14
01-Oct-14 Rape
01-Dec-14 Possession of a false document with 
11-Mar-15 Possession of food (pork and ham) 
for sale which failed to comply with 
food safety requirements; Failing to 
keep a food premises clean and in 
good repair; Failing to ensure that 
food waste and other refuse did not 
Failing to store food so as protected 
against contamination; Failing to 
store raw materials so as protected 
against harmful deterioration and 
Causing an explosion contrary to 
section 2 of the Explosive Substance 
Act 1883

Sentence  Outcome Appeal 
False imprisonment; Causing grievous 
• U
bodily harm with intent
22-Oct-15 Fraud and making off without payment
• Q
Indecent assault; Indecency with a 
child; Rape; Attempting to commit an 
act of gross indecency
29-Sep-15 Common assault and Being drunk and 
disorderly in a public place
24-Mar-15 Failure to produce a satisfactory 
immigration document
24-Mar-15 Failure to produce a satisfactory 
immigration document
20-Aug-15 Al owing a dog to be ‘Dangerously 
Out of Control in a Public Place’, 
contrary to Section 3(1) and (4) of the 
Dangerous Dogs Act (1991)
15-Dec-15 Failing to identify the driver of a motor 
• Q
29-May-15 Possession of a false document 
24-Sep-15 Failure to produce a satisfactory 
immigration document contrary to 
section 2(1) Asylum and Immigration 
(Treatment of Claimants, etc.) 
Act 2004
05-Oct-15 Offences arising from assaults
• Q
26-Feb-14 Murder
ALI, Idris
12-Mar-15 Manslaughter
10-Feb-16 Conspiracy to supply Class A drugs 
• Q
Possession of cannabis with intent to 
Robbery and Handling stolen goods
06-Jun-14 Sexual activity with a child x2; Rape
The following table records the outcomes in relation to two Commission referrals which were 
recorded in previous annual reports as R (reserved) and have since been decided.
Sentence  Outcome Appeal 
KHAN, Bakish
02-Aug-13 Conspiracy to supply heroin
HANIF, Ilyas
02-Aug-13 Conspiracy to supply heroin

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
The following table records the outcomes in relation to six Commission referrals which were not 
recorded in previous annual reports.
Sentence  Outcome Appeal 
30-May-13 Doing an act tending and intended to 
prevent the course of public justice; 
Conspiracy to supply a Class B drug
30-May-13 Conspiracy to supply a Class B drug; 
Conspiracy to steal
30-May-13 Conspiracy to supply a Class B drug; 
Conspiracy to steal; Theft and 
handling stolen goods
Arson; Damaging property; Threat to 
• U
15-Sep-14 Asylum case: Failure to produce a 
satisfactory immigration document 
contrary to section 2(1) Asylum and 
Immigration Act 2004
Key Performance Indicators
KPI 1 Time from receipt to allocation
Purpose: This KPI records the average time taken for an application to be al ocated to a CRM for review, 
and gives an indication of how long applicants wait before their case is started. 
Definition: The time from the date of receipt of the application to the date of al ocation to a CRM for 
review, averaged for all applications in the reporting period for which a CRM al ocation date has been 
recorded. Re-al ocations are ignored. 
Calculation: Recorded for each month and the rol ing 12 month period, calculated separately for at liberty 
and in custody cases. 
Frequency: Monthly. 
Data source: Case statistics compiled from the case management system. 
Plan: for the average time to al ocation to be less than 26 weeks for custody cases and 78 weeks for at 
liberty cases.
Actual average time for custody cases (weeks):
Apr:  21.9  May: 19.0  Jun:  23.2  Jul:  22.4  Aug:  20.4  Sep:  23.7
Oct: 21.6 Nov: 15.7 Dec: 20.8 Jan: 15.7 Feb: 15.9 Mar: 16.0
Rol ing 12 months average time for custody cases: 19.4 weeks.
Actual average time for at liberty cases (weeks):
Apr:  60.0  May: 29.6  Jun:  67.5  Jul:  49.3  Aug:  43.8  Sep:  55.0
Oct: 68.6 Nov: 62.2 Dec: 64.8 Jan:  55.5 Feb:  49.7 Mar: 65.3
Rol ing 12 months average time for at liberty cases: 55.4 weeks.

KPI 2a Duration of Review4
Purpose: This KPI records the average time taken for an application to be reviewed.
Definition: For review cases, the time from the date of al ocation of the application to the issue of an initial 
decision averaged for all applications in the reporting period for which an initial decision has been issued. 
Calculation: Recorded for each month and the rol ing 12 month period.
Data Source: Case statistics compiled from the case management system.
Plan: for the average duration of review cases to be less than 28 weeks .
Actual average time for review cases (weeks):
Apr:  25.3  May: 25.0  Jun:  15.3  Jul:  32.2  Aug:  12.3  Sep:  15.0
Oct:  44.3  Nov: 28.7  Dec: 30.2  Jan:  35.6 Feb:  32.9  Mar: 26.0
Rol ing 12 months average time for custody cases: 27.1 weeks.
KPI 2b Time to decision from application
Purpose: This KPI records the average time taken for an application to be reviewed from the point of 
Definition: The time from the date of application to the issuing of the final decision averaged for al  
applications in the reporting period for which an final decision has been issued. 
Calculation: Recorded for each month and the rol ing 12 month period, calculated separately for each type 
of review case and no appeal cases.
Data Source: Case statistics compiled from the case management system.
Plan: For the average duration of review cases to be less than 56 weeks for custody cases, 88 weeks for 
liberty cases and 15 weeks for no appeal cases.
Actual average time for custody cases (weeks):
Apr:  40.7  May: 61.7  Jun:  71.5  Jul:  54.9  Aug:  60.1  Sep:  36.4
Oct:  50.3  Nov: 54.0 Dec: 61.3  Jan:  50.4 Feb:  36.3  Mar: 67.5
Rol ing 12 months average time for custody cases: 55.7 weeks.
Actual average time for liberty cases (weeks):
Apr:  55.0  May: 79.4  Jun:  47.8  Jul:  98.6  Aug:  78.0  Sep:  80.0
Oct:  97.7  Nov: 87.5  Dec: 84.7  Jan:  95.2 Feb:  89.1  Mar: 106.3
Rol ing 12 months average time for liberty cases: 84.9 weeks.
Actual average time for no appeal cases (weeks):
Apr:  12.9  May: 8.6  Jun:  6.3  Jul:  5.9  Aug:  5.7  Sep:  10.1
Oct:  7.4  Nov: 8.7  Dec: 8.2  Jan:  6.5  Feb:  9.1  Mar: 10.2
Rol ing 12 months average time for no appeal cases: 8.3 weeks.
4  KPI2a and 2b in this report have replaced last year’s KPI2 – Time from allocation to decision for review cases and NA’s.

CCRC Annual Report 2015/16
KPI 3 Caseflow balance
Purpose: A high-level measure to show the effect of the increase in applications on our queues. The 
greater the imbalance between intake and case closures the longer waiting times will become.
Definition: The total number of cases closed at all stages minus the number of applications received. 
Applications include s15 directions from the Court of Appeal.
Calculation: Recorded for each month and the rol ing 12 month period.
Frequency: Monthly.
Data source: Case statistics compiled from the case management system.
Plan: Monthly: >0, full year: >0
Actual: Over the whole year we closed 317 more cases than we received.
KPI 4 Complaints and judicial reviews
Purpose: The number of complaints and judicial reviews serves as a measure of the quality of service 
Definition: 1. The number of cases re-opened as a proportion of complaints and pre-action protocol letters 
resolved and judicial reviews heard. 2. The number of complaints otherwise upheld as a proportion of 
complaints resolved.
Calculation: Recorded for the current period and for the last 12 months.
Frequency: Quarterly.
Data source: Records of official complaints maintained by the Customer Service Manager and of judicial 
reviews maintained by a Legal Advisor.
Plan and performance:
Target rate
Actual rate
Cases re-opened
KPI 5 Quality Assurance
Purpose: A measure of the quality of review work as measured by the Commission’s own quality assurance 
Definition: The number of cases examined in the Quality Assurance (QA) sample for which additional work 
is undertaken, expressed as a percentage of all cases examined.
Calculation: Quarterly and for the last 12 months.
Frequency: Quarterly.
Data Source: QA system records.
Plan: That cases requiring further work should be less than 4% of the sampled cases.
Actual: 0%.

KPI 6 Time to notification of referral5
Purpose: This KPI records the average time taken to notify the court and applicant of a referral from the 
point of agreement to refer.
Definition: The time from the date of the committee agreement to refer to the point when the court and 
applicant are notified of the referral by sending the Statement of Reasons.
Calculation: Recorded for the 12 months to date and cumulatively over the life of the Commission.
Frequency: Quarterly.
Data source: Case statistics compiled from the case management system.
Plan: <2 months in 90% of cases.
Actual: 72.7% for the 12 months with a cumulative figure of 76.2%.6
KPI 7 Staff absence
Purpose: The extent to which staff and Commissioners are absent affects the productivity of the 
Commission and its ability to meet its casework targets.
Definition: The aggregate number of days of employee and Commissioner absence through sickness, 
divided by the ful -time equivalent number of employees and Commissioners.
Calculation: Recorded for the current period and for the year to date.
Frequency: Monthly.
Data source: Internal y generated data based on personnel records.
Plan: Sickness absence: <7.5 days per annum.
Actual: Sickness absence: 8.7 days per annum.
KPI 8 Expenditure against budget
Purpose: A key indicator of financial management is the extent to which expenditure in the period is 
aligned to the delegated budget, with neither overspends nor significant underspends.
Definition: Total expenditure less delegated budget, measured separately for resource and capital, 
expressed as a % of budget.
Calculation: Forecast for the year.
Frequency: Monthly.
Data source: Management accounts.
Plan and performance:
Budget %
Budget %*
Resource (RDEL)
Capital (CDEL)
Note*. Variances quoted against the revised budget after transfer of £47k from RDEL to CDEL.
5  KPI6 in this report replaces last year’s KPI6 – Referral conclusions.
6  Cumulative figure includes backdated data to Q1 14/15. The new KPI 6 was introduced in July 15.

Document Outline