It was hailed as the answer to a criminal justice system rocked by a series of high-profile miscarriages of justice. The new Criminal Cases Review Commission would take on the task of exposing wrongful convictions and righting the failings of the justice system. Now, ten years on, headlines are no longer about victims of that system but about victims of crime. In this changed political climate, the rights of defendants are unfashionable.

So, as it celebrates its first decade, how is the Commission performing its task — or is it losing its appeal? Graham Zellick, chairman, agrees that things have changed. There are no longer the systemic failings of the 1980s, he argues. “Widespread dishonesty, impropriety, corruption within whole sections of police forces... I think are a thing of the past.” But failings or dishonesty of individuals — whether police, lawyers, or witnesses — can never be eliminated.

The commission clearly still has a job to do. Since 1997 it has completed 8,500 cases. Just under 1,000 arrive each year. Its job is to examine whether there is “a real possibility” that the conviction might not be safe and, if so, refer it to the Court of Appeal to be reviewed. But only a small proportion, 4 per cent, is referred: in all, 343 referrals in 10 years, and of 292 cases so far heard 200 — or 70 per cent — have been quashed.

Critics argue that this low rate of referral shows the commission is too cautions. Some also say that the test should be lowered to “an arguable case”. Zellick disagrees. “We are an extraordinary remedy. It’s not as if people had no appeal or right to apply to appeal. So our test should be different. We were also appointed to exercise judgment in these matters, not just interfere and dump on the Court of Appeal.” And, he adds, if 90 to 100 per cent of referrals were being quashed, then critics would say that the commission was being too restrictive, usurping the courts’ role and not applying the test fairly and properly.

“But with one third of cases that go through the commission and the court being upheld, it seems we get the balance right.”

However, if the balance is right on the referral test, it is not right on delays — a chief criticism levelled at its predecessor, a section of the Home Office. Most cases are dealt with within a year, but in the 20 per cent of more complex cases the delay is up to 20 months for those in custody and 32 months for people at liberty. Zellick agrees that the delay is unacceptable. “The great majority of those waiting will not have their case referred but a small number will, and in the meantime are in prison and suffering injustice. That can’t be right.”

The commission, which has a budget of £7.6 million, inherited a backlog from the Home Office when it took over its miscarriages work. The aim was to cut the backlog by this year. But the commission was faced with severe budget cuts. The commissioners, who look at and endorse every case from a caseworker, had to be cut in number from 16 to 11. But “strenuous efforts”, including an overhaul of management and transfer of funds to frontline workers, contained the delays. Without an input of £500,000, however, Zellick predicts that it will take up to five years to be rid of the backlog.

Zellick, who became chairman in 2003, has put his case to the Home Office without success. “No public service is adequately resourced. But we have done what we could to ensure we are efficient and effective — we can’t really do more.”

The work by definition is labour-intensive and time-consuming. Caseworkers spend from 30 hours to four years on a case. Former lawyers, former police officers, court staff, they all have a knowledge of the justice system.

Scott Marcroft, the case manager who handled the recent Andrew Adams case, says: “It’s very, very rare you get a case where you are convinced of a person’s innocence. When you find that key piece of paper in a box in a dusty room — that’s a good feeling.” He continues: “In Adams, much of the case rested on evidence of a supergrass whose credibility was undermined by the inquiries we made.”

The commission’s “success list” includes such names as Derek Bentley, Timothy Evans, Sally Clark. Decisions are pending on Barry George (convicted of the murder of Jill Dando) and Michael Stone, convicted of the murder of Lyn and Megan Russell. Peter Taylor, another senior case manager who handled the case of Warren Blackwell, cleared of a rape that never happened, says: “We can predict what is coming — you get a high-profile trial and, two years later, the appeal system exhausted, it comes to us.”

The final decision is made by one of the commissioners. David Jessel, the former broadcaster who made his name campaigning over miscarriages, is now the most senior commissioner. He believes that the system works. “In the last seven years there have been only five cases where I have been unhappy that we have not referred. And two came back (they can reapply) and were then referred. You can’t keep a good miscarriage down. It always surfaces in the end.”

The commission, he says, provides the ultimate full stop — and one that is outside the system. Penelope Barrett, commissioner and former barrister, says: “It’s easy to criticise. We’re not like a lawyer pushing for your client on every possible line of argument whether it has merit or not. We have to look objectively at the safety of a conviction — a phenomenal task in 1,000 cases a year. What’s important is that someone not part of the courts, or Government, or Home Office, is looking at the system and can say — it got it wrong.”

Zellick identifies problem areas: historic sex abuse cases, because the events occurred a long time before and there is a lack of corroborative evidence; expert evidence — he questions the ability of juries to cope in cases with complex expert testimony.

Also, the growth of judicial review means a body such as the CCRC faces regular challenges. In one significant ruling last December, the commission was challenged by the Director of Revenue & Customs Prosecutions over four money-laundering cases referred to the Court of Appeal. “We won a resounding victory and our costs,” Zellick says. But the case raises two key questions: whether the Court of Appeal is right to refuse people leave to appeal, out of time, even though their conviction is unsafe. Secondly, should old cases be judged on “new” common law, as it now is, or as it was when they were convicted?

In the meantime, work goes on. “We are very much a safety net. Everyone in the system is glad we are here. But it should not be a recipe for complacency. People who go to prison for crimes they didn’t commit suffer enormously and the repercussions can be quite devastating. You can’t make up for that.”

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Iranian bank challenges EU sanctions
• Lord Falconer to join Gibson Dunn
• A Judge by name is new Lord Chief Justice