Wrongful conviction organisation fails to deliver promised inquiry

Sunday, 2 November 2025

The Criminal Cases Review Commission investigates potential wrongful convictions.

The government-funded body established to investigate wrongful convictions has failed to complete a crucial piece of work, and is refusing to say why.

In early 2024, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) announced it had launched an extensive inquiry into eyewitness identification evidence, and how it could cause miscarriages of justice.

It was due to release a public consultation paper in mid-2024, with its final report and findings presented to the Justice Minister by June 2025.

Neither of these things happened.

Now, following questioning from the Sunday Star-Times about the missing project, the CCRC says it has refined the inquiry’s scope, and instead hopes to deliver a report by June 2026.

The CCRC was created in 2020 to look at potential wrongful convictions. The legislation establishing it also allowed the CCRC to investigate issues which could cause miscarriages of justice.

And it quickly became apparent from the cases the commission was presented with, and referred back to the courts to be reconsidered, that there were concerning problems with the reliability of eyewitness identification.

Faulty eyewitness evidence is well known as a cause of wrongful convictions worldwide.

Alan Hall, who was convicted of murdering Arthur Easton, spent 19 years in jail for the crime. His conviction was quashed by the Supreme Court. Stuff followed Alan and his family during the process. (First published in June 2022)

In New Zealand, it has played a part in high-profile miscarriages of justice, including the cases of Teina Pora, Alan Hall, and David Dougherty. Controversies about eyewitness evidence were highlighted during the recent appeals of convicted double murderers Scott Watson and David Tamihere.

In April 2023, the CCRC canvassed the views of over 90 academics, professional bodies, and government agencies, who supported further examination of the issue.

The CCRC began its inquiry in February 2024, saying it would be “supported by a range of experts, including a panel with extensive academic and professional expertise.”

It is unknown if this ever occurred, as the CCRC has refused to detail any work already done.

At the time, it promised an issues paper would be released “within the next few months” for consultation and feedback, but this never happened.

The CCRC also promised “regular updates” for the public on its website, but nothing has appeared.

When the final report and findings were due to be delivered to Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith in June this year, for tabling in Parliament, the Sunday Star-Times asked the CCRC whether it would meet its target, but chief executive Parekawhia McLean refused to say what progress had been made.

She said the CCRC would brief the minister at the end of June, and provide an update on progress afterwards. No update was ever given.

When the Star-Times recently inquired what was happening, a spokesperson said the Commission had decided at its October meeting to “refine the scope” of the inquiry.

Now, it would only look at “possible improvements” to one section of the Evidence Act relating to formal procedures for obtaining visual identification evidence by officers such as police.

Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) chief executive officer Parekawhia McLean, who has just been reappointed for a further three years.

It intended to publish a draft report and proposed recommendations in early 2026, and following “targeted consultation with external stakeholders” a final report would be completed by June 30, 2026.

The CCRC refused to say why it didn’t meet any of its targets for the original inquiry; what, if any, progress had been made on it in the last 18 months; why the inquiry’s scope was now being significantly reduced; why it had taken till now - four months after the project was meant to be finished - to make this decision; or who was overseeing it.

The organisation also wouldn’t comment on whether resourcing problems, or staff turnover were to blame for the failure to produce the report (its annual budget is around $4 million), and wouldn’t even say what date in October its meeting was.

However it did announce on October 17 that McLean had been reappointed for a further three years.

Criminal Cases Review Commission chief commissioner Denis Clifford.

The mystery over why the CCRC hasn’t completed such a major inquiry and report follows other concerns about the organisation, including its slowness to deal with applications from those who believe they’ve been wrongfully convicted; its use of police for training, given police are often responsible for miscarriages of justice; and the replacement of key commissioners last year.

This included the controversial dumping of founding chief commissioner Colin Carruthers, KC, who was replaced by retired judge Denis Clifford. It was an appointment widely criticised as inappropriate, likely to undermine perceptions of the CCRC’s independence, and deter people from applying to have their cases reviewed by the CCRC.

In more than five years of operation, the CCRC has received nearly 600 applications from those saying they’ve been wrongfully convicted. So far, they have referred only five cases back to the courts, a level of referral well below what was expected, and significantly less than similar wrongful conviction bodies overseas.

Many cases the CCRC is investigating have been in front of it for more than five years, with some applicants remaining in jail while they wait for the commission’s decision.

The problems at the CCRC have led to concerns it could lose public confidence, as has happened with the UK CCRC, established nearly 30 years ago, but now mired in controversy.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said he had been advised of the inquiry’s new timeline. He did not answer questions whether he was satisfied with the CCRC’s work, or retained confidence in it.