CCRC's refusal just or unjust?

Upon first glance the Warner case seemed to follow a fairly routine formula. Warner, the defendant, broke into Mr and Mrs Pool's house and murdered them and unsurprisingly this was the position the Police took. However after further reading on the accused's case file it appeared that all was not as it seemed. The Police overlooked two other possible suspects one of them a neighbour and former police officer who had been accused on numerous occasions as being a peeping Tom. The other a man known as the 'Vampire' who had committed a series of sexual assaults around the area at the time. Warner claimed to have never gone upstairs and there was never any evidence found to prove otherwise his major downfall was that he foolishly 'got the drunken urge to steal something'.

After several failed attempts at appeal Mr Warner applied to the commission for a case review, his arguments were; No blood was found on any of his clothes or did it seem like any attempt was made to conceal the act of murder at his shared caravan, there is still no evidence to prove Warner went upstairs were the bodies were found, new forensic techniques should be used to analyse DNA samples and finally that the police should look into other leads e.g 'The Vampire'. The review was successful to some extent for Mr Warner as It was agreed by the CCRC that under section 17 forensic scientists would be introduced to the case and under section 19 a senior Police Officer would be brought in to investigate the case further.

The findings however proved less successful for Mr Warner as the leading officer on the case believed they had strong support to believe that Warner did in fact go upstairs and that the evidence against the other two potential suspects was not strong enough. Therefore the CCRC refused Mr Warner a second trial.

When asked if I think the CCRC did the right thing, I think its a difficult situation as the case took place over 10 years before the review. The fact that scientific evidence from the original trial had been lost obviously did not work in Warner's favour and maybe this shows a lack of foresight by the Police. However on the evidence obtained under the section 17 and 19 none of the evidence could really be deemed as 'fresh' so it is understandable that the case was refused as it was unlikely that the case was going to be overturned. I think the frustrations of the police having to work with lots of unidentified fingerprints and those that could be identified were not found in key places I.e the neighbour Smith had fingerprints in the front porch which he claimed were there due to him handing out refreshments to Police Officers but nothing incriminating. Whether or not Warner did commit the crime only really he'll know but he still remains the obvious culprit, if in fact he did happen to break into the house on an unfortunate night then he is one unlucky man.