Speeches by Munt.

“Yes, I just want to pick up on what you said. I will invite you to write to the Chair. I would be quite interested in knowing how many of the cases that you have referred are matters of process as opposed to matters of fact and evidence. For example, I am aware of what I know are a historic couple of cases—McDaid and, …”

“Thank you.”

“Eight hundred and seventy three referrals to the Court of Appeal since exactly when?”

“You are saying that there have been eight hundred and—”

“Tessa Munt. Everything is on the register, but I draw your attention to the fact that I am a director of WhistleblowersUK, which is a non-profit-making organisation.”

“Since when?”

“From what to what? Forgive me—”

“Thank you. May I just pick you up on your statements about being more successful in referrals? I think I have the facts here, saying that in 2024 CCRC received 1,629 applications and 25 were referred to the Court of Appeal, which is fewer than 2%. In reality, I suspect, to most of us, the only thing that matters is ref…”

“Thank you. Turning to the substance of the Henley report’s conclusions and recommendations, we have talked about the main lessons. But there is one bit where the Henley report says that the CCRC needs to aspire to capture more miscarriages of justice and that “The question should always be ‘might this be a miscarriage …”

“In lockdown, of course it would. I understand that.”

“Doing it in good faith is not good enough, is it, when you are talking about justice?”

“Indeed, you have said. Okay, so Chris Henley’s view was that there was an early “lack of oversight and direction” in relation to Malkinson’s case. Do you feel that you were responsible for that lack of oversight and direction?”

“So it didn’t go to them in January.”

“I am sorry to interrupt, but did you not consider sending it to the IOPC and the other organisations that you mentioned in its draft form? Surely, that would have been sufficient as well and you could have done that in the January.”

“Who advised you of that?”

“That is still three months.”

“Thank you. If he follows up on any of these things, he will no doubt be grateful for that, but it was certainly the case that the CCRC’s initial apology was deemed to be inadequate. Chris Henley has said that he provided his report to the CCRC in January 2024. Do you know why it wasn’t published until 18 July 2024?”

“Do you feel that it might be appropriate to pass on that apology now?”

“Yes.”

“You do; thank you. I want to move particularly to the Andrew Malkinson case. As I think probably everybody knows now, 26 July 2023 was when the Court of Appeal quashed Andrew Malkinson’s convictions, and it was in August 2023 and then April 2024 that Helen Pitcher, as the then chair, apologised to Andrew Malkinson for …”