SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD ON FRIDAY 28 AUGUST 2026

10:00 AM, HYBRID MEETING (OFFICE & VIDEO CONFERENCE)

FOR DISCLOSURE VIA THE PUBLICATION SCHEME

In line with the Commission’s Disclosure policy, various paragraphs may have been edited or deleted from these minutes as the information contained therein relates to specific case information and/or personnel-related matters. Where the summary of discussion has been edited or the names have been deleted, this is indicated at the start of the relevant paragraph or section.

Present:

  • Dr Vanessa Davies (Chair) – office
  • Miss Alyson Forbes – video conference
  • Ms Jacqueline Fordyce – video conference
  • Mrs Gillian Mawdsley – office
  • Mrs Suzie Mertes – office
  • Mr Finlay Young – office
  • Dr Alex Quinn – office

Also Present:

  • Miss Frances McMenamin KC – video conference
  • Mr Michael Walker, Chief Executive – office
  • Mr Chris Reddick, Director of Corporate Services (minutes) – office

 

Section 1: Governance Matters (edited)

1.1 Apologies

Ms Reilly had submitted her apologies.

1.2 Conflicts of Interest/Declarations of Interest/Gifts & Hospitality

Members were asked to declare any known conflicts of interests or gifts and hospitality.

Mrs Mawdsley declared that she had attended a dinner hosted by Changing Ideas in August 2026 in a private capacity based on her work with fatal accident inquiries.

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

1.3 Minutes of Board meeting held on 31 July 2026

The Board approved the minutes of the Board meeting held on 31 July 2026, subject to minor amendment. The Board also approved the version of the minutes for the Publication Scheme subject to the same minor amendment.

1.4 Matters Arising

There were no matters arising.

1.5 Board Actions List

Mr Walker provided an update on SPS/Webex access for legal officers, and Mr Reddick provided an update on the legal officer recruitment timetable. The Board noted progress on agreed Board actions.

 

Section 2: Case Matters (edited)

2.1 Monthly Case Summary:

The Board noted that a total of 26 new applications had been received in August 2026. Mr Walker confirmed the stage 1 case numbers for consideration at the September Board meeting and the current active case numbers. Dr Davies asked if an email could be circulated to Members confirming when the stage 1 papers had been published, which Mr Reddick agreed to action with the admin team.

2.2 – 2.6 There were no cases in these categories.

2.7 Persistent & Repeated Applications Policy

Note to the Board (M Walker)

2.7.1    Mr Walker provided the Board with a summary of his proposed updates to the Persistent & Repeated Applications Policy to address two specific points within the policy, concerning vexatious applications and applicants who are removed from the register and who then recommence submitting repeated applications which meet the registration criteria.

2.7.2    After full discussion, the Board agreed to the changes to the policy, subject to minor wording changes, and agreed that the updates provide a good, pragmatic solution to the potential issues identified. Mr Walker agreed to make those minor changes and to circulate the Policy to Members before it goes on the website.

Registration Appeal (D Fenn)

(Conflict: M Walker)

(Mr Walker left the meeting for this discussion having taken the initial decision to register the individual on the Persistent & Repeated Applications Register)

2.7.3    Mr Fenn provided the Board with an overview of Mr Walker’s initial registration and the points of appeal raised by a previous applicant. After full discussion the Board agreed that the approach adopted had been reasonable and fair and therefore did not uphold the individual’s appeal.

2.8 There were no cases in these categories.

 

Section 3: Proposed Referral Cases 

There were no cases in this category.

 

Section 4: Proposed Interim Cases (edited)

The Board considered one statement of reasons in this category. After full discussion it agreed not to refer the case to the High Court.

 

Section 5: Proposed Supplementary Cases (edited)

The Board considered three statements of reasons in this category. After full discussion it agreed not to refer the cases to the High Court.

 

Section 6: Stage 1 Pre-acceptance Cases (edited)

A total of 33 new applications were considered, and the following decisions were made:

6 cases Accepted for a review of conviction.
1 case Rejected: the applicant had not appealed, there were no plausible or stateable grounds of review and it was not in the interests of justice to accept the application.
1 case Continued: for one month for more information.
1 case Rejected: there were no plausible or stateable grounds of review, and it was not in the interests of justice to accept the application.
4 cases Rejected: in each case there were no plausible or stateable grounds of review.
2 cases Rejected: in each case it was not in the interests of justice to accept the application.
13 cases Rejected: in each case the applicant had not appealed and there were no plausible or stateable grounds of review.
1 case Rejected: the applicant had not appealed.
3 cases Rejected: in each case the grounds of review were a repeat of the grounds of appeal.
1 case Rejected: the grounds of review were a repeat of the grounds of appeal, and it was not in the interests of justice to accept the application.

Miss Forbes left the meeting in respect of one case, having previously declared a conflict of interest, and therefore took no part in its consideration.

Ms Mertes left the meeting in respect of two cases, having previously declared conflicts of interest, and therefore took no part in their consideration.

Dr Quinn left the meeting in respect of three cases, having previously declared conflicts of interest, and therefore took no part in their consideration.

Ms Reilly had previously declared a conflict in one case and was not in attendance at the meeting.

 

Section 7: Management Issues (edited)

7.1 Chair’s Report

7.1.1    Dr Davies updated the Board on the ongoing recruitment exercise for a new legal Member and a new lay Member.

7.1.2    Dr Davies reported that she had her annual catch-up meeting with Cat Dalrymple, Director for Justice at SG, in which they had discussed various live issues, including the number of Keir and Daly-type applications to the Commission and the increasing number of applications to the Commission.

7.2 Chief Executive’s Report

Mr Walker also provided the Board with an update on the following matters:

  • He reported that on 19 August he and Mr Reddick attended a quarterly sponsorship meeting with Justice Directorate and he provided an overview of the main points on that agenda.
  • He reported that on 19 August he and Mr Reddick attended a meeting with members of the implementation team for the Canadian Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission, explaining that the main item discussed was our approach to victim notification.
  • He reported that on 26 August Mr Fenn and Ms Marsh met Sandy Brindley and her colleague at the Emma Ritch Law Clinic, Glasgow University, in connection with our reviews in Keir and Daly-type applications.
  • He updated the Board on the recruitment exercise for a new legal officer.

7.3 Court Decisions

Court decisions in two referral cases were discussed. The Board noted the court’s reasons for refusing the appeals in these cases.

7.4 Correspondence:

An email exchange between Mr Walker and the President of the Faculty of Advocates Criminal Bar Association had been circulated to Members. The Board noted that the President of FACBA had, in response to the Commission’s inquiry, canvassed his members for their views about why the Commission had received no Keir and Daly-type applications backed by an opinion of counsel and it noted the various reasons for this put forward by FACBA members.

7.5 Notification by Members of non-case related work

Dr Davies confirmed that she had spent a full day over the course of July and August working on Board recruitment.

7.6 Training & Development

Mr Walker reported that one of the senior legal officers had undertaken first aid training.

7.7 Judicial Review

A copy of a petition and the Commission’s answers relative to a judicial review case had been circulated to Members. Mr Walker updated the Board on the court action, explaining that the next stage in the process will be for a Lord Ordinary to decide whether to grant the petitioner permission to proceed with the action.

7.8 2025-26 Annual Report – Update

Mr Walker confirmed that the 2025-26 Annual Report was currently with the designers and agreed to circulate a copy for the next Board Meeting. He confirmed that the Annual Report along with the 2025-26 Annual Accounts will be laid before Parliament once the external audit had been concluded and the accounts had been signed off.

 

Section 8: Concluding Matters

8.1 Any Other Competent Business

There was no other competent business.

8.2 Date of Next Meeting

  • Board Meeting – Friday 25 September 2026 @10:00

 

C Reddick

1 September 2026