This guide is maintained as a current resource for July 2026 and covers only the laws of England and Wales. Information is for general guidance, not legal advice. Consult a qualified solicitor for advice specific to your situation.
Learn how miscarriages of justice are considered in criminal appeals in England and Wales, including the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, how new evidence and procedural issues are reviewed, and what steps lead to convictions being overturned and compensation claims.
Ensuring fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system is a cornerstone of the legal framework in England and Wales. Despite rigorous trial procedures, wrongful convictions - commonly known as miscarriages of justice - do occur. The law provides avenues to challenge these decisions and seek correction through appeals. This article explains how miscarriages of justice are identified and addressed within the appeals process, including how new evidence or legal arguments can lead to convictions being quashed and the role played by independent review bodies.
1. What Is a Miscarriage of Justice?
A miscarriage of justice generally refers to a situation where someone is convicted despite being innocent, or where the procedures leading to conviction were fundamentally unfair or flawed. Miscarriages can result from errors in evidence, incorrect application of law, flawed forensic analysis, procedural irregularities, or other factors that undermine confidence in the decision of the trial court.
When such issues are identified, they may form the basis of an appeal - a formal request to a higher court to review and correct the decision. In some cases, a miscarriage of justice is first reviewed by a specialised body before being referred to the appellate courts.
2. The Legal Framework for Criminal Appeals
In criminal matters, appeals against conviction or sentence are governed primarily by the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Under this Act, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) must allow an appeal if it considers the conviction unsafe. An unsafe conviction is one where the appellate court has significant doubts about the reliability or fairness of the original outcome. The appeal process does not normally re‑hear all evidence but focuses on legal and factual errors that may have affected the verdict.
Most appellants must first seek permission to appeal. Time limits are strict, generally requiring appeals to be lodged within 28 days of conviction or sentencing, depending on circumstances.
3. Common Grounds for Miscarriage of Justice Appeals
Miscarriages of justice may be raised in appeals on several bases:
a. New or Fresh Evidence
One of the most significant ways miscarriages of justice are addressed is through new evidence that was not available at the original trial. This might include newly discovered forensic data, witness statements, or scientific analyses that cast doubt on the original verdict. For example, modern DNA testing has led to successful appeals in longstanding cases where earlier technology could not exclude a defendant's innocence.
b. Procedural or Legal Errors
Errors during the trial - such as incorrect directions to the jury, misapplication of legal principles, or failure to admit certain evidence - can render a conviction unsafe. Courts assess whether such errors affected the fairness or outcome of the trial, and may allow an appeal on that basis.
c. New Legal Arguments
In some cases, developments in law or legal interpretations produce new arguments that were not raised or available at the time of trial or initial appeal. These may be considered if they have the potential to change the assessment of safety.
4. The Role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is a statutory independent body established under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to review potential miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is separate from the police, the courts and the prosecution.
If someone has exhausted normal appeal routes and still believes a miscarriage of justice has occurred, they can apply to the CCRC for review. There is no time limit on applications to the CCRC, and it can investigate even decades‑old cases. The CCRC has special legal powers to obtain documents and evidence from public bodies and can re‑interview witnesses or commission new expert reports.
The CCRC's remit covers convictions and sentences from all courts, including Crown Courts and Magistrates' Courts, though most cases involve Crown Court appeals.
5. How the CCRC Considers Applications
The CCRC evaluates cases to determine whether there is a ‘real possibility' that the conviction or sentence would not be upheld if referred back for appeal. This means the Commission looks for new evidence or argument that could meaningfully impact the safety of the conviction. Typically, applicants should have already appealed before applying to the CCRC, and the new information must not have been raised previously.
If the CCRC identifies evidence or arguments that meet this threshold, it can refer the case back to the appellate court. The appeal court then determines whether the conviction is unsafe or the sentence unfair. Importantly, it is the appeal court - not the CCRC - that has the authority to overturn a conviction or reduce a sentence.
On average, around 3% of applications to the CCRC are referred back to the courts, illustrating both the rigour of the commission's threshold and the volume of cases reviewed.
6. What Happens After Referral
Once the CCRC refers a case to the Court of Appeal:
- The appellate court reviews the new evidence or argument alongside the original trial record.
- The court considers whether the conviction is unsafe - a broad test that may encompass legal errors, fresh evidence, or procedural flaws.
- If the court finds the conviction unsafe, it may quash the conviction or order a retrial or resentencing.
Quashing a conviction does not automatically mean the defendant is declared innocent; it means the original verdict is no longer considered reliable.
7. High‑Profile Examples and Public Impact
High‑profile cases often illustrate how miscarriages of justice are addressed. For instance, the conviction of Peter Sullivan, who spent nearly four decades in prison before the Court of Appeal quashed his murder conviction after new DNA evidence emerged, highlights the impact of scientific advances and independent review.
Such cases also prompt debate about the effectiveness and resources of the system that handles miscarriages of justice, particularly the CCRC's role and expertise in evaluating complex scientific evidence.
8. Claiming Compensation After Overturning a Conviction
When an appeal succeeds and a conviction is quashed, individuals may be eligible to apply for compensation for miscarriage of justice under the UK government's scheme. This requires specific documentation, such as the appeal judgment and relevant records, and the application is made to the Miscarriages of Justice Applications Service (MoJAS).
Compensation is intended to address the consequences of wrongful conviction and can cover various impacts arising from detention and loss of reputation.
9. Practical Considerations and Limitations
- Time and Process: Appeals and CCRC reviews can be lengthy, particularly where complex evidence or forensic analysis is involved.
- Thresholds: The requirement for “real possibility” at the CCRC stage and “unsafe conviction” at appeal ensures only compelling cases proceed.
- Evidence Requirements: New evidence must not just be different - it must have the potential to alter the appellate court's view of the conviction's safety.
Understanding these standards helps applicants know when a miscarriage of justice claim may be viable.
Summary
Miscarriages of justice are addressed within the criminal appeals framework by enabling wrongful conviction claims to be revisited where there is new evidence, procedural error or substantial legal argument affecting the safety of the conviction. The Criminal Cases Review Commission plays a key role in investigating alleged miscarriages and, where appropriate, referring cases back to the Court of Appeal. The appeal court ultimately decides whether a conviction is unsafe and may quash it or order further proceedings. Successful appeals can also pave the way to compensation for those affected by wrongful convictions.
