The long road to justice: Is NZ’s wrongful conviction body doing a good job?

Sunday, 29 June 2025

The Criminal Cases Review Commission turns five this week. Despite being heralded as the solution to wrongful convictions in New Zealand, concerns about slowness, a lack of results, and slackness of communication are emerging. Mike White reports.

On July 1, 2020, Mike Kalaugher pressed a button and sent a document on its way to Hamilton.

The document was the result of years of work by the justice campaigner, who believed the conviction of Stephen Hudson for murdering Nicholas Pike in 2002 was wrong.

The destination for his document was a recently-created government organisation investigating potential miscarriages of justice - the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

The independent body had powers and resources to review cases, and send them back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration, if it thought there had been a mistake.

Kalaugher had investigated numerous cases where he believed injustices had occurred, including writing a book about Scott Watson’s conviction for the Sounds murders, and bringing a private prosecution of a jailhouse snitch, which resulted in David Tamihere’s murder convictions being sent back to the courts.

And for years, Kalaugher had called for the establishment of a CCRC, like the ones in England, Scotland and Norway.

He’d appeared before the select committee considering it, and was overjoyed when the Labour-New Zealand First coalition created our own CCRC in 2020.

So, on day one of the CCRC’s existence, he was ready with an application on behalf of Hudson, who is serving a life sentence in prison.

“We were waiting for the starting gun to go,” remembers Kalaugher.

But five years on, Kalaugher’s enthusiasm for the organisation has dulled somewhat, due to delays, the high proportion of cases rejected, and poor communication.

And five years on, he’s still waiting for a decision from the CCRC about that application from Hudson.

“I think they’re doing a good job on it, but it’s another five years in prison.

“And that time is lost to people like Stephen - they can’t get that back.

“I think it’s a very good idea to have a CCRC. But I’m a bit disappointed in many respects.”

Since the CCRC came into existence, it has considered 545 applications from people who say they were wrongfully convicted or sentenced, including in nearly 100 homicide cases.

But in five years, it has sent only four cases back to the courts. (The CCRC says it will soon announce a fifth case.)

This means the “referral rate” - the number of cases deemed potential miscarriages of justice from the applications that have been reviewed - is about 1.3%.

This contrasts with referral rates of around 3% in England, 5% in Scotland, and 16% in Norway.

The fact it has cost more than $20 million to operate the CCRC for five years, for just four cases to be accepted, has raised questions about the CCRC, and follows other concerns about its operation.

Kalaugher is one who believes that, based on international statistics, genuine wrongful conviction cases have been overlooked in the CCRC’s haste to reduce a backlog of applications.

Another emerging problem is the high turnover of staff.

The CCRC employs 24 people (and seven commissioners, who decide if cases are referred back to the courts).

Statistics obtained by the Sunday Star-Times under the Official Information Act show that in 2024, and also in 2025 so far, the staff turnover rate has been 21%.

More concerningly, among the seven-strong investigations team, which reviews the merits of each application, six people have resigned in the last 18 months, and the Star-Times understands another leaves this month.

This means cases get handed from one investigator to a new one, who then has to get up to speed by re-looking at the police investigation, the trial, and appeals, resulting in inevitable delays.

Of the 25 cases currently undergoing detailed CCRC investigation, 12 have been handled by two investigators, and four by three or more investigators.

Only nine of these cases have been overseen by a single investigator.

Despite this, the CCRC’s chief executive, Parekawhia McLean, is confident the CCRC’s “handover processes” after an investigator resigns, are managed carefully to ensure continuity.

When asked if it was appropriate that people who applied five years ago still haven’t had a decision from the CCRC, McLean said there was “a focus of our commissioners and myself that people are being contacted and that they are being given updates and progress on their cases and applications. And that’s happening on a regular basis.”

That’s disputed by the likes of Shaun Allen, whose application has been with the CCRC for more than four years.

In April 2022, Allen says he was contacted by the CCRC to tell him his case was being progressed to a full investigation.

Allen says this was the last time he heard from the commission in any substantial way, apart from an acknowledgement last year after advising them he had changed address.

In January last year, he forwarded extra documents about his case, but never got a reply.

“I’ve sent messages to them wanting contact, or to talk to somebody, and nobody ever responds or replies,” says Allen, who has now given up on the body.

“The CCRC - it just ain’t happening, simple as that.

“They’re a non-event.”

On Friday, the CCRC said it sent Allen a letter in December 2023, but “unfortunately, his request to speak to an investigator was not actioned and we have not followed up with him.

“We sincerely apologise for this oversight.”

Others spoken to by the Star-Times also said any updates on their longstanding cases only happened if they prompted the CCRC.

When asked about the low number and proportion (1.3%) of applications being referred back to the courts, compared to other CCRCs, McLean argues it is a relatively new organisation and she expects referral rates to increase as investigators work through more complex cases.

She also claims the threshold for referring cases to the courts is high in New Zealand.

But the threshold (that “it is in the interests of justice” a case be reconsidered by the courts) is the same as Scotland, which has a much higher referral rate at around 5%, and in the 2023-24 year, referred four cases back to the courts - the same number of cases New Zealand’s CCRC has referred in five years.

Moreover, New Zealand’s threshold is considered less stringent than the English CCRC’s requirement that there is a “real possibility” the courts will overturn the conviction or sentence, yet that body’s referral rate is double New Zealand’s.

(A Ministry of Justice analysis prior to the CCRC’s establishment estimated our CCRC’s referral rate would be 7.3%.)

The CCRC was also due to deliver a report to the justice minister on systemic problems with eyewitness identification evidence, this month, including findings and recommendations.

When asked whether it would meet this target, McLean initially said the commission would be “doing an update to the minister at the end of the month,” and wouldn’t say what progress had been made.

In a follow-up statement, McLean said the commission would provide an update after the minister had been informed.

Nigel Hampton, KC, who was a CCRC commissioner for more than four years until he resigned in 2024, says the organisation should be seen as a success.

Hampton quit the CCRC in October before his term finished, after the justice minister controversially appointed a new chief commissioner, retired judge Denis Clifford, and two new commissioners who had virtually no experience as defence lawyers, and no background in individual wrongful conviction cases.

However, Hampton insists the CCRC remains an essential part of New Zealand’s criminal justice system.

And, despite his concerns, he says it is still a huge improvement on the previous Royal prerogative of mercy system, which left decisions on wrongful convictions largely with Ministry of Justice officials, who had few investigative powers or skills.

Hampton says the greatest failure of any CCRC is not picking up genuine miscarriages of justice among the applications, as has occurred in the UK in high-profile cases recently.

However, Hampton says he is satisfied that in the time he was at the commission, all cases were scrutinised properly by investigators and commissioners.

“I can’t think of any application that I personally had qualms about, in terms of turning them away.”

He accepts the commission took at least two years to get established and hit its stride, particularly with the effects of Covid, and was swamped with an unexpected “tsunami of applications”, which led to delays and case backlogs.

While he felt they had begun to get on top of this, Hampton was concerned with the slow progress of referrals, while recognising the CCRC’s investigations had “to grind slowly and finely” to make sure nothing was missed.

And he acknowledged that from the outside, four referrals to the courts in five years, after $20 million spent on the CCRC, may not seem a good return on investment, and left the organisation politically exposed. (National opposed the CCRC’s creation.)

“But the obvious and easy answer, but not necessarily all that palatable to politicians, is, ‘What price justice?’

“I was beating a drum for a CCRC for a long time, and I still think it’s the right answer.”

The CCRC’s new chief commissioner, Denis Clifford, this week initially indicated to the Star-Times he would discuss the CCRC’s progress.

However, the following day, the organisation’s head of communications phoned to say Clifford would not be interviewed, but supported everything his chief executive, McLean, said.

What do you think? Email sundayletters@stuff.co.nz. Please include your full name and address.