FOI Board Minutes – 27 February 2026

SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD ON FRIDAY 27 FEBRUARY 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
• Ms Laura Reilly – office
• Dr Alex Quinn – office
• Miss Alyson Forbes – video conference
• Ms Jacqueline Fordyce – video conference
• Mrs Gillian Mawdsley – office
• Mrs Suzie Mertes – 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

Mr Young 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 conflicts of interest or gifts, and hospitality declared.

1.3 Minutes of Board meeting held on 30 January 2026

The Board approved the minutes of the Board meeting held on 30 January 2026, subject to minor amendment. The Board also approved the version of the minutes for the Publication Scheme, subject to minor amendment.

1.4 Matters Arising

Miss McMenamin KC provided an update on the planned Supreme Court visit to Glasgow, where several cases will be heard in the City Chambers in May 2026. She confirmed that The Right Hon Lady Rose of Colmworth, Justice of the Supreme Court, was keen to visit the Commission and that arrangements were being taken forward to facilitate this, along with other events of which she would keep Members informed.

1.5 Board Actions List

Dr Davies asked for an update in respect of the circulation of the legal officer’s analysis of court decisions. Mr Reddick confirmed that this was currently done internally within a Teams group and that he would speak to Miss Anderson about circulating separately by email to Members.

1.6 Minutes of the Audit Committee held on 5 February 2026

The draft minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 5 February 2026 had been circulated for information.

1.7 Matters Arising

Mrs Mertes provided an overview of the main points of business from the meeting, confirming that both internal and external audit had been in attendance. In particular she noted that the internal auditors had provided an update on 2025-26 audit coverage, as well as the plan for 2026-27, setting out details of the new charging arrangements. She also noted that the external audit annual plan for 2025-26 had been agreed.

Mrs Mertes reported that the internal auditors had provided a horizon scanning report of issues and risks affecting public sector organisation. She had suggested undertaking a PESTLE analysis, possibly as part of a future policy meeting, in order to consider issues more pertinent to the Commission and incorporating these into future plans and risk management arrangements.

Mrs Mertes also reported that the updated Business Continuity Plan had been considered and future plans to easily track updates had been agreed.

1.8 Audit Committee Actions List

The action points from the last meeting of the Audit Committee had been collated and noted by the Board.

1.9 Chair’s Report

Dr Davies confirmed that her appraisal had been completed and thanked Members for their input. She also reported that she had observed the online appeal hearing in Kirkup v HMA on 26 February 2026. The appeal against conviction focused on an application made under s275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

1.10 Chief Executive’s Report

Mr Walker reported that the previously discussed cyber training had now commenced and asked Mr Reddick to provide the Board with an update. Mr Reddick confirmed that a fake spear phishing email had already been circulated to all Members and staff and the response to this had been used by the trainers as a baseline for developing subsequent mandatory training and testing. He confirmed that the next stage would be a request for all users to complete the mandatory online training within 2 weeks of issue on the week commencing 9 March 2026. He agreed to send Members a reminder when the request email was being issued.

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

• He reported that on 15 January 2026 he, Mr Reddick and Mr Fenn had met with the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Implementation Team from Canada. They had contacted the Commission to discuss various organisational matters.
• He reported that on 30 January 2026 the Convener of the Criminal Law Committee at the Law Society of Scotland had issued an email to the Society’s Members to remind those practising in criminal defence work about the terms of Article 12 of the Code of Conduct for Criminal Work in respect of the retention of papers and the Society’s guidance on the Ownership and Destruction of Files, and about the role of the SCCRC. The email noted that the SCCRC had asked the Society (and other stakeholders) to consider imposing a moratorium on the destruction of papers and materials in all sexual offence cases, in light of the UKSC cases of Keir and Daly, but stated that the Society had not yet taken any decision on the proposed moratorium.
• He reported that SCTS had responded to our request for SCTS to consider imposing a moratorium on the destruction of papers and materials in all sexual offence cases. SCTS stated in its response that it does not intend to alter its existing procedures, explaining that, in essence, the papers in solemn cases will be retained in any event and that the papers in summary cases will already have been destroyed
• He reported that on 4 February 2026 he had met with Stephen McGowan, Deputy Crown Agent, to discuss, amongst other things, the ongoing issue regarding forensic archive. Mr McGowan had offered to come through to the Commission and discuss this directly with the Board, which Mr Walker agreed to arrange.
• He reported that on 16 February 2026 he and Mr Fenn had met with two Members of the Regulatory Committee regarding the Post Office/Horizon cases. The Regulatory Committee stated that they still wish to access our papers in the Post Office/Horizon cases, explaining that the Law Society is due to obtain new statutory powers requiring organisations to provide them with information. Mr Walker confirmed that the Commission’s position remained as that which was set out in our letter of November 2024 to the Regulatory Committee, but stated that, if they wished to make a further request for information, based on their new statutory powers, this should be made in writing.
• He reported that on 17 February 2026 he had received an email from the UK Government Cabinet Office regarding a scheme to assist public sector bodies with short-term resource issues.
• He reported that on 18 February 2026 he had met with John Logue, the Crown Agent, regarding S275 cases and that Mr Logue had confirmed that he would keep the Commission up to date with any such appeals going through the Appeal Court. They had noted that a draft information sharing agreement with Crown Office was also close to agreement.
• He confirmed that Dame Vera Baird, interim Chair at CCRC, would be visiting the Commission on 31 March 2026.
• He reported that he had received notification of a complaint raised concerning him through the SLCC by one of the Commission’s previous applicants and he confirmed that he would be co-operating fully with this matter.

1.11 Court Decisions

Mr Fenn provided the Board with an overview of the High Court decision in a Commission referral case. After full discussion the Board noted that this was a useful decision and noted that the case had been well argued despite ultimately being refused.

1.12 Correspondence:

There was no correspondence.

Section 2: Management Issues

2.1 Notification by Members of non-case related work

There was no non-case related work notified by Members.

2.2 Training & Development

The following training and development had been undertaken since the last meeting of the Board:

• As noted earlier, training in respect of cyber security awareness, particularly in respect of phishing emails, had commenced for all Member and staff and this would be taken forward on a rolling basis over the next 24 months.

2.3 Risk Management – C Reddick

Mr Reddick confirmed that the quarter 3 version of the Corporate Risk Register had been updated and fully considered by the Audit Committee at their meeting on 5 February 2026. He reported that the register contained one update to scoring in respect of risk 4 and that details of a number of new mitigating and control actions had been captured, along with a new arrow system to aid review.

Mr Reddick reported that the Audit Committee had discussed in detail the scoring arrangements for the Corporate Risk Register and the limited movement in scores over time, despite implementation of mitigating and control action. He confirmed that the current scoring method, using high, medium and low instead of actual numeric scores, had an impact on nuanced changes in scoring. He also noted that unlike operational risks, the strategic risks captured by the register, contained high level risks, many of which are inherent in their nature. After full discussion the Board noted the updated Corporate Risk Register. Dr Davies also suggested that a Board Risk Workshop be scheduled in the new year.

2.4 Board Evaluation – C Reddick

Mr Reddick confirmed that he had circulated with papers an updated version of the Board Evaluation Questionnaire, which he encouraged all Members to complete and return to him 16 March 2026, so that he could consider the responses and include any development points within the 2026-27 Business Plan. He confirmed that a word version had been emailed and a separate pdf version was available to annotate via BoardBooks.

Section 3: Case Matters (edited)

3.1 Monthly Case Summary:

Mr Reddick confirmed that a total of 25 new applications had been received in February 2026, with 10 of these being received via the new website.

3.2-3.3 There were no cases in these categories.

3.4 Referral Press Releases:

One referral press release had been issued since last meeting of the Board.

3.5-3.6 There were no cases in these categories.

3.7 Persistent & Repeated Applications:

The Board considered an applicant’s appeal of the Chief Executive’s decision to reject his last application in accordance with his registration under the Persistent & Repeated Applications Policy. After full discussion the Board chose not to uphold the appeal, confirming that the latest application did not contain anything materially different or new from previous applications.

The Board considered an applicant’s appeal of the Chief Executive’s decision to place him on the Persistent & Repeated Applications Register. After full discussion the Board chose not to uphold the appeal on the basis that the Persistent & Repeated Applications Policy had been applied correctly in this case.

3.8 Discussion Cases:

S274/275 – Operational Update Note – D Fenn and C Marsh

Mr Fenn provided the Board with a full update on operational arrangements being put in place to process S274/275 applications received by the Commission. He confirmed that a team, comprising Miss Marsh and himself, had been set up to deal with this class of cases, and set out the proposed operational changes specific to this class of case.

He referred Members to the new standard information request form which had been put in place in order to provide greater structure to submissions in this class of case. After full discussion the Board suggested that some of the language used in the form could be simplified and that ways of encouraging a response to all questions, possible by creating fields for each response, should be considered further.

Miss Marsh report that she, along with Mr Fenn and Dr Davies, had observed the online appeal hearing in Kirkup v HMA on 26 February 2026. The appeal against conviction focused on an application made under s275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Miss Marsh briefed Members on the submissions. Members engaged in a discussion of the case and the issues raised.

Mr Fenn reported that an enquiry had been received from Alistair Carmichael MSP on behalf of one of his constituents who was concerned with how the Commission was responding to this class of case. After full discussion it was agreed that Mr Walker would respond to this enquiry.

Dr Davies noted that these cases would potentially be accompanied by quite unpleasant materials and that it was important for the Board and management to be alive to staff welfare considerations.

Section 4: Proposed Referral Cases (edited)

There were no cases in this category.

Section 5: Proposed Interim Cases (edited)

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

Section 6: 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 7: Stage 1 Pre-acceptance Cases (edited)

A total of 22 new applications were considered, and the following decisions were made:

Dr Quinn and Ms Reilly left the meeting in respect of one case each and, Ms McMenamin in respect of two cases, having previously declared conflicts of interest, and therefore took no part in their consideration.

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 27 March 2026 @ 10:00

C Reddick

5 March 2026