Not for the first time, a Federal Attorney-General has shrugged off a proposal to consider the establishment of a Criminal Cases Review Commission. The public should know this. The legal profession should know this – especially the few who have shown support for such a body. The A-G’s department has again turned away from the proposal in the same language as its predecessors. But none have given a reason.
It can’t be party political; A-Gs of both major parties have turned their backs on calls for a CCRC. I know because I’ve got their replies to my proposals, like this latest one. It can’t be because such a Commission is unsuitable in a multi-jurisdictional country like Australia. The blueprint for a nationally structured Commission with full State-by-State participation has been clearly set out by Flinders University legal academic, Dr Bob Moles (see below). What, then?
5 December 2025
From Acting Director
Criminal Law Section
Attorney-General’s Department
“Dear Mr Urban
Thank you for your letter of 10 November 2025 to the Attorney-General, the Hon Michelle Rowland MP, proposing the establishment of a Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). The Attorney-General has requested that the Attorney-General’s Department respond to you on her behalf.
“The Government is not currently considering establishing a federal Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Government remains of the view that if a person is not satisfied with the decision of a court in their matter, the appropriate avenue of review is through the existing appeal processes.”
A federal CCRC has not been proposed. Is it carelessness or wilful obfuscation that the Acting Director, Criminal Law Section misrepresents the proposal? What is proposed is a nationally structured system. See the details in my letter below.
10 November 2025
To Attorney General,
The Hon Michelle Rowland MP
I write as an author and journalist focused on wrongful convictions since 2013, with five books and countless articles published on the subject. Some of the cases I have researched remain unresolved, unofficially wrongful convictions, due in large part, I believe, to a missing piece of legal infrastructure: a Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
“At a time when democracy is being challenged, it is the trust and integrity of our legal institutions and the justice system that are of utmost importance,” you told departmental officers shortly after stepping into your role. As one commentator wrote, “If she delivers on her rhetoric, the first law officer looks set to secure her place as a reformer by embarking on a long-overdue program to rebuild trust in the justice system.” It is to that sentiment that I appeal in this letter.
As you may be aware, Australia is the only country in the Anglosphere without a CCRC, a situation that prompted The Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG to write in the Criminal Law Journal: “…no jurisdiction has yet resolved to establish a Review Commission. What is it about our country that always sees us limping behind [UK, NZ and Canada] where justice is at stake…”
He adds: “The experience of [the UK CCRC] has more than justified its establishment. It resulted in the setting aside of large numbers of convictions in serious criminal cases.”
His Honour knows what he is talking about. He was Justice, High Court of Australia (1996–2009); President, NSW Court of Appeal (1984–1996).
Also keen to see a CCRC in Australia, The Hon Thomas Bathurst AC KC, a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW (2011-2022), who argued for reforms to address over-reliance on circumstantial and tendency evidence, and supported a CCRC for efficient post-conviction reviews to avoid “searing injustice.”
There are several others with relevant standing who have called for this reform, such as the Australian Academy of Science, which in November 2023 called for “the establishment of post appeals review mechanisms, such as a Criminal Cases Review Commission.”
The Academy’s Chief Executive Anna-Maria Arabia said Ms Kathleen Folbigg’s case demonstrates the need for decisions in the justice system to be routinely informed by reliable evidence especially when it involves understanding complex and emerging science.
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has stated that “the current systems of criminal appeals in Australia may not adequately meet Australia’s obligations under the ICCPR in relation to the procedural aspects of the right to a fair trial. More particularly, the AHRC has concerns that the current system of criminal appeals does not provide an adequate process for a person who has been wrongfully convicted or who has been the subject of a gross miscarriage of justice to challenge their conviction.”
Ralph Bonig: [then President of the Law Society of South Australia] “We have publicly supported the establishment of such a body in South Australia, and there has also been talk about a national body and we’ve publicly supported that…”
Professor Stephen Cordner, former director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, has reviewed methods of dealing with wrongful convictions and argues “we make it too hard to have a false conviction overturned and statistics indicate there are innocent people denied justice. Australia needs a Criminal Cases Review Commission similar to the English one,” he told The Age (August 22, 2020).
The role of a properly constituted CCRC with extensive powers is to examine applications from accused persons whose appeal has been dismissed and refer worthy cases to the relevant appeals court. The High Court, as you would know, has a specific, narrow focus on the law, and often beyond the reach of applicants.
“The prospect of an innocent person being convicted of a serious crime represents a catastrophic failure of the legal system.” The Chief Justice of England, Lord Igor Judge (1 October 2008 – 30 September 2013)
I have written to some of your predecessors but have not received any replies expressing an interest in the subject – nor any reasons why the country’s primary law officer would not wish to make a positive difference to our justice system. I wonder whether you might.
Recognising the challenge of establishing a CCRC here in multi-jurisdictional Australia, I sought the advice of acclaimed legal academic and author Dr Bob Moles of Flinders University. He has provided the outlines of a practical framework:
A national CCRC can be established by setting up a single CCRC and then each state and territory can legislate to nominate that CCRC as the appropriate agency to review cases on its behalf and exercise powers given to the CCRC by that state to refer matters to the appeal court of that state. This would not involve any constitutional change of any sort.
In essence, instead of duplicating the overheads of a CCRC eight times by having one in each state, we save resources by having a single body exercising the appropriate powers for each state and territory.
I know that there are some who take the view that getting states to cooperate is a highly challenging and they may well be right on that, but I think it should nevertheless be a strategic goal, both from the point of view of economy, but also from the point of view of ensuring independence of the review process.
Australia has a single unified legal jurisdiction which is why we have a common Supreme Court (the High Court). To have a single administrative body which can exercise powers on behalf of each state and territory, being cognisant of the minor variations in the law which may occur between them, would be administratively simple and have strategic and economic benefits.
It should be noted of course that according to the AHRC, the criminal appeal system in all states and territories failed to comply with international human rights obligations. It failed to respect the right to a fair trial and to ensure an effective appeal. It is of course the responsibility of the Federal Attorney-General to ensure compliance with International Treaties.
So, Madam Attorney, a CCRC is desirable and doable – and it needs your leadership. What a legacy it would be.
Respectfully yours,
Andrew L. Urban
As a footnote, I should add that if a Government with an oversize majority in Parliament can’t see its way to such practical, much needed reform …what good is a majority?