Researchers review role of digital communications evidence in CCRC applications
Published: 3 June 2025
Research on the role of digital communications evidence in Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) applications involving rape and sexual offences has been undertaken by the University of Glasgow and Loughborough University
New research on the role of digital communications evidence in Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) applications involving rape and sexual offences, has been published today (3 June).
Researchers examined 119 applications made to the Commission where it was claimed by the applicant their conviction was unsafe.
The research team, based at the University of Glasgow and Loughborough University, explored the frequency and nature of CCRC applications involving digital communications evidence (DCE), and specifically whether the introduction of this type of evidence was associated with a particular outcome for that application.
They found 62% of applications mentioned DCE as the reason for applying to the CCRC, with many applicants arguing that data from victims’ mobile phones or laptops would undermine a victims’ credibility and/or reveal their innocence.
The CCRC is the independent body that investigates potential miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Only when the Commission believes they have received new evidence that any subsequent appeal would be successful, will they send cases back to the courts for a fresh appeal.
Only two cases examined in the research project featured DCE that could be considered ‘new’, as most evidence had either been discussed at trial or considered by the police and/or the Crown Prosecution Service. Of these two cases, one alleged sexual activity on dating apps and the other was a vague claim that the victim visited a ‘hate website’.
The researchers reported that it appeared to be challenging for the CCRC to investigate claims raised by applicants because few provided specific details around the evidence they felt was relevant to explore, and would make generic suggestions such as, ‘look at her phone’ inferring there may be something to undermine the victims’ credibility.
While 48% of the applications in the sample of 119 cases resulted in a full investigation by the CCRC, none were referred to the Court of Appeal. The majority of the remaining cases were closed because they had not yet undergone a first appeal.
Authors of the report, Professor Michele Burman and Dr Oona Brooks-Hay both of the University of Glasgow and the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, and Dr Olivia Smith of Loughborough University with Dr Yassin Brunger of Queens University Belfast, found the research also raised issues around victim credibility checks and victim notification.
Professor Burman said: “We saw examples where applicants would refer to social media posts or online dating profiles as evidence of a person not acting like a ‘real victim’, which links to wider perceptions and misconceptions about rape victims.
“We found that victim credibility was a key factor in applications made to the CCRC, as it often is in police investigations and in criminal trials.”
When conducting credibility checks, the CCRC can review social services records, education and health files, counselling records, social services files, compensation claims, and other legal proceedings. The report authors found these checks were made in around half of the eligible applications (26) but nothing of relevance was found and only one victim was notified that these checks were being made.
Professor Burman commented: “While the decisions appeared largely appropriate overall, if the CCRC faces pressure to conduct more wide-reaching or more frequent credibility checks, it should be contextualised in terms of rape myths, victim-blaming, and privacy rights. With this in mind, we set out five key recommendations for the CCRC around victim credibility checks and victim notifications, as we believe there is room to strengthen existing policies and practices.”
Among these recommendations, the report suggests the CCRC consider the implications of the Policing, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022 which states that complainants must receive notice in writing about what information is being sought, why it is being sought, and how the information will be dealt with.
The report also suggests that CCRC reviewers should more explicitly consider victim’s privacy rights when it comes to digital evidence and third-party material and do not endorse disproportionate levels of investigation. The final recommendation is for the CCRC to conduct a Rape Victim Impact Assessment of their existing policies.
A CCRC spokesperson said: “We welcome this research and recognise the value of independent scrutiny. We will be considering each of the recommendations to identify any learning.
“We take the rights of victims extremely seriously under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). We give careful consideration to Article 8 in connection with any enquiries into third-party material and digital evidence.
“The powers to obtain third party material may only be exercised where they are necessary and reasonable for the discharge for the CCRC’s statutory function. However, we will be looking into whether any formal policies, internal training or guidance materials need to be reviewed to give further protection to complainants’ rights under the legislation.
“We are one of the organisations that has specific responsibilities to victims set out in the Victims’ Code. We also have a member of casework staff who acts as the CCRC’s ‘Victims Champion’ and who provides advice, alongside our Head of Investigations.
“While victim notification is considered in every CCRC case, we recognise the need to ensure that our reasoning is always fully documented. We are currently developing additional training for casework staff and Commissioners on this subject.”
First published: 3 June 2025