Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Reasons to DoubtWrongful Convictions and the Criminal Cases Review Commission$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Carolyn Hoyle and Mai Sato

Print publication date: 2019

Print ISBN-13: 9780198794578

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: March 2019

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198794578.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 08 July 2020

Managing Efficiency and Thoroughness in Case Review

Managing Efficiency and Thoroughness in Case Review

Chapter:
(p.255) 12 Managing Efficiency and Thoroughness in Case Review
Source:
Reasons to Doubt
Author(s):

Carolyn Hoyle

Mai Sato

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198794578.003.0012

This chapter examines the Criminal Cases Review Commission's decision-making process through the lens of efficiency and thoroughness. It first considers the ‘sense-making’ process of gathering and interpreting information within the Commission and how the Commission prioritises cases before discussing the Commission's formal ‘knowledge-building’ based on expert evidence and complainant credibility, along with its cultural knowledge. It then analyses the Commission's field that sets the boundaries of the scope of organisational enquiry, the decision frames that help individual decision-makers to operationalise the concepts of thoroughness and efficiency, and the key performance indicators used to measure the Commission's success. It also explores the amount of ‘empirical’ investigation beyond ‘desktop’ reviews carried out by case review managers (CRMs) and the use of section 17 powers to obtain information from external bodies and experts. Finally, it explains how the Commission secures compliance without resorting to legal coercion.

Keywords:   decision-making, Criminal Cases Review Commission, sense-making, knowledge-building, expert evidence, complainant credibility, field, frame, thoroughness, efficiency

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .