SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION

MINUTES OF THE POLICY MEETING ON FRIDAY 24 JULY 2026 @ 10:00, HYBRID MEETING

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.

There have been no edits to these minutes.

 

Members Present:

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

 

Also Present:

  • Mr Michael Walker, Chief Executive – office
  • Mr Chris Reddick, Director of Corporate Services (minutes) – office
  • Miss Frances McMenamin K.C., Consultant Legal Adviser – video conference
  • Mr Daniel Fenn, Senior Legal Officer – office (from section 2.0)
  • Miss Alison McNab, Legal Officer – office (from section 2.0)
  • Mr Stephen Lynn, Legal Officer – office (from section 2.0)
  • Miss Clare Marsh, Legal Officer – office (from section 2.0)
  • Mr Matthew Bell, Legal Officer – office (from section 2.0)

 

Section 1: Governance Matters

1.1 Dr Tunde Huszar – Centre for Forensic Science, University of Strathclyde

Training Sessions – Novel Technologies for DNA Evidence in Court

 

 

1.1 Apologies

Dr Quinn had submitted his 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.

There were no declarations of conflicts or hospitality.

1.3 Minutes of Policy meeting held on 19 September 2025

The minutes of the Policy meeting held on 19 September 2025 were noted having previously been approved by the Board on 31 October 2025. The Board also noted the version of the minutes for the Publication Scheme.

1.4 Matters Arising

There were no matters arising.

1.5 Correspondence/Discussion Points

            Board Recruitment – Dr Davies

1.5.1    Dr Davies provided the Board with a full update on planning arrangements for the next Board recruitment exercise, confirming that the first engagement meeting had been scheduled for 24 July 2026. She noted that this provided her with an excellent opportunity to canvass opinion from Members at the Policy meeting.

1.5.2    The Board discussed in detail the desirable criteria for both legal and lay positions and agreed a number of steps to assist with the advertising strategy and attract a strong pool of candidates.

 

Section 2: Policy Matters

2.1     Stage 1 Cases (M Walker)  

2.1.1    Mr Walker provided an overview of his paper in respect of stage 1 decision making and no appeal cases, both of which had previously been discussed by the Board and agreed to be considered further at the Policy meeting. For context, he provided a full update on current case volumes, noting that a total of 102 cases had been received so far this year which would potentially mean a year-end figure in the region of 300 cases. Of these cases, he noted that almost 50% were no appeal cases. He also noted that a total of 49 of these cases had been received online via the new website.

2.1.2   In respect of wider context, Mr Walker provided a direct comparison to the number of overall convictions and appeals in Scotland, noting the subsequent consequential impact on the Commission’s volumes and impact on capacity and resilience. In respect of applications from legal representatives, he noted that the number of advice and assistance applications with SLAB for Commission applications had decreased significantly and was reportedly in the 20s over the past year. He also provided a comparison with the CCRC who had also experienced an increase in case volumes of 20% over the past year.

2.1.3   The treatment of no appeal cases was discussed in the context of the Commission’s statutory position paper and the premise that applicants would need to provide good reasons why they had not appealed for an application to be accepted. Mr Walker also noted the Commission’s approach to stage 1 cases had developed over the years whereby applicants were provided with much more detailed explanations for rejections, compared with the refusal letters of the past, and this had an impact on workload.

2.1.4   The Board discussed what assistance or clarity could be provided to applicants and it was agreed that the Commission could be more explicit in terms of what it considers good reasons for not appealing. Mr Young suggested that better ways of communicating with applicants could be explored, such as the production of a video to provide more relevant help and information. Ms Fordyce also noted the implications of not having appealed on the information available to the Commission.

2.1.5   Miss McNab suggested that more could be done to raise the issue externally in terms of simplification of the appeal process with the courts and access to legal representation and consultation on the Legal Aid Bill etc. Mr Fenn also noted that the Commission’s application process was comparatively less complicated which attracted applicants who hadn’t appealed. Mr Lynn agreed that appeals guidance could be enhanced and that a direct guide to criminal appeals, along with appropriate links and sign-posting, could be included on the Commission’s website.

2.1.6   Miss McMenamin K.C. suggested that the Lord Justice General and Lord Justice Clerk be invited to the Commission for a discussion with the Board and staff on matters of mutual concern and to raise the profile of the issues being raised in respect of no appeal cases.

2.1.7   After further discussion, Dr Davies noted that the general feeling was that the Commission’s position wasn’t changing, but more could be done in respect of communication and guidance, particularly in respect of what constitutes good reasoning for not appealing, in the context of a fresh application to the Commission.

2.1.8   Mr Walker concluded by noting the impact of S274/275 cases and likely resourcing requirements which would be discussed with Justice Directorate at the next quarterly meeting. Dr Davies also confirmed that she would be meeting with the Director for Justice at Scottish Government and would flag these issues and impact on the Commission.

2.2     Position Papers (D Fenn)

 2.2.1    Mr Fenn confirmed that a review of the following two position papers had now been undertaken:

  • Sufficiency
  • The Commission’s Statutory Test

2.2.2    Mr Fenn confirmed that he had incorporated a new Moorov section within the Sufficiency position paper which now superseded the standalone Moorov position paper. He confirmed that he had received various style and content suggestions which he confirmed would be incorporated into the final version. Dr Davies referred to a recent paper by Professor James Chalmers, noting the level of misunderstanding around dockets. Mr Fenn agreed to insert a brief comment in respect of the use of dockets.

2.2.3    In respect of the Statutory Test paper, it was agreed that this went hand in hand with the guidance document for applicants and representatives and it was agreed that any updates in respect of no appeals cases, discussed as part of the agenda, should be incorporated into the final version before coming back to the Board. Mr Fenn agreed to take this forward.

2.3     Guidance for Applicants & Representatives (D Fenn)

 2.3.1    Mr Fenn confirmed that the submissions guidance for applicants and representatives had been considered in June 2026 by the Board and that he had agreed to update this based on discussions. He also confirmed that he had a received a number of useful comments and suggestions in respect of general format and language which he had incorporated.

2.3.2    Dr Davies noted that the language was still potentially overly legalistic and agreed to work with Mr Fenn on a further review in line with plain English guidance.

2.3.3    The Board also discussed the references to submissions using artificial intelligence (AI) and agreed that further consideration of the impact of AI on submissions to the Commission was required as well as an overall position on the use of AI across the business.

2.4     Information Governance Policies Update (S Lynn)

2.4.1    Mr Lynn presented the updated versions of the Response Plan for Personal Data Breaches and the Records Management Policy, confirming that both had been subject to the required annual review and that no changes or updates were being proposed.

2.4.2    Dr Davies referred to the Response Plan for Personal Data Breaches, noting that additional clarity on reportable breaches would be beneficial, along with details of oversight, potentially via the Commission’s Audit Committee. Mr Lynn agreed to take this forward with Mr Reddick.

2.5     Complaints Procedure (C Reddick)

2.5.1    Mr Reddick confirmed that the Complaints Procedure was scheduled for review by 31 March 2026, along with the overall approach for dealing with service complaints. He suggested that some input from the Board at this stage may assist with the overall review. He also provided some background into complaint numbers and matters, noting that the majority of complaints received related to the investigation and decisions taken in respect of cases and as such fell outside the remit of the Complaints Procedure.

2.5.2    The Board discussed the current Complaints Procedure and noted that this may benefit from a review of terminology and language, particularly to emphasis that the procedure relates to service complaints only. The subject of meaningful feedback was also discussed and the potential to use a standard “complaints form” as a means of focusing service complaints.

2.5.3    Mr Reddick confirmed that he would consider these points further as part of this review and seek out points of good practice in complaint handling from other organisations.

2.6     Public Services Reform (C Reddick/M Walker)

2.6.1    Mr Reddick provided the Board with an overview of a paper that had been prepared and submitted to Scottish Government in response to the recent Public Services Reform (PSR) event held on 8 June 2026, providing an update on the Commission’s PSR plans and activities to date. In particular, he noted the papers set out the following:

  • A summary of how existing financial, workforce, business planning and reform activities align with Spending Review and PSR expectations.
  • An update on workforce targets, risks and mitigations.
  • Identification of key barriers requiring escalation.

2.6.2    He confirmed that recent capacity and resource planning activities had been incorporated into the response and noted that the exercise had also helped focus on some potential opportunities, including shared services as a means of reducing some legislative risk and legal workforce pressures, as well as digital opportunities.

2.6.3    The Board discussed the paper in full and agreed that many of these opportunities were good in principle but equally reliant on quality and effective shared service arrangements. Mr Reddick agreed to provide a further update if any feedback on the paper was received.

2.7     HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate – An Inspection of CCRC Case Reviews (M Walker)

2.7.1    Mr Walker provided the Board with an overview of his papers in respect of the HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate’s assessment of the effectiveness of the CCRC’s structures that support their casework, decision making and assurance processes. He also confirmed that the main point for consideration was whether the Commission should be considering any form of third-party assessment of case handling procedures/decision making process and if there are any relevant potential learning points that could equally apply to the Commission despite the differences in procedures and approach.

2.7.2    Dr Davies noted that third-party review and assessment could potentially be resource intensive and suggested that in the first instance the development of a business assurance framework may be the best first step. She also suggested that academic input could be a longer-term approach in obtaining third-party opinion and assurance. The Board discussed the benefits and potential cons of assurance frameworks and agreed that internal expertise and resource could be utilised to take this forward under the oversight of the Audit Committee.

2.7.3    After further discussion it was agreed that further consideration of assurance frameworks would be taken forward at the next Policy meeting and that third-party, academic input could be considered in the longer term following internal assurance work.

2.8     Persistent & Repeated Applications Policy (M Walker)

2.8.1    Mr Walker confirmed that the current Persistent & Repeated Applications Policy was not scheduled for review until 2027, but noted that the current policy does not address the situation where an applicant comes off the register after the 6 year period and then immediately behaves again in a persistent and repeated manner. He provided the Board with a suggested updated and sought opinion on the proposed update.

2.8.2    After full discussion the Board agreed that the wording of the proposed update should be considered further and that the updated policy should return to the Board meeting in August 2026 for decision.

 

Section 3: Court Decisions

3.1     Section 274/275 – JH v HMA [2026] HCJAC 25

Mr Walker provided the Board with a summary of the decision in the case of JH v HMA [2026] HCJAC 25. The Board noted the content of the decision.

 

Section 4: Concluding Matters

4.1     Any Other Competent Business

 There was no other competent business.

4.2     Date of Next Meeting

 The date of the next Policy meeting is to be confirmed. The Board also noted a number of items which would be put to the next meeting agenda.

 

Chris Reddick

25 August 2026