The Criminal Cases Review Commission - A Quarter of a Century On
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the ability of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to identify, investigate and rectify cases of alleged miscarriage of justice. Following a summary of the work of the CCRC over its first quarter century in operation, it analyses the extent to which its establishment addressed the purposes for which it was put into place and comments on how initial concerns have been addressed. The article focusses on the operation and interpretation of the ‘real possibility’ test under s.13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, submitting that significant impediments exist when seeking a truth-based rectification of miscarriage of justice cases in cases of alleged factual innocence, with arguably undue deference given to the approach of the Court of Appeal. It also considers whether its independence is compromised. It concludes with its findings that whilst the CCRC has undoubtedly been a welcome addition to the criminal justice system, significant issues remain within the post-appeal mechanism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.075 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".