Richard Foster took over as Chair of the CCRC in November 2008. He was Chief Executive of the Crown Prosecution Service from 2001 to 2007 and is currently Chair of the Refugee Council.

He was Director, Welfare to Work Delivery, responsible for New Deals from 1998 to 2001 and is a former Director of the Employment Service in the Department for Education and Employment.

He was also First Secretary (Stockholm) with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1981 to 1984 and was Principal Private Secretary to the Minister of State, Department of Employment. Mr Foster was educated at Devonport High School for Boys and at Pembroke College, Cambridge.

From 31st March 2017, Mr Foster will also be the part-time Chair of the South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust.

UNFIT FOR PURPOSE

The CCRC is said by many to be unfit for the role they have been given. Many a time it has taken a public media campaign to force the Commission to action. Looking at the positions held previously by most of the Commissioners, there is likely to be a bias, leaning toward siding with the prosecution, the Judges and the Police forces that they have worked with - and of course the supposed victims of any crime that a person may have been convicted of in an English Court. Indeed, one of the reasons for not referring one case to the appeal court was that the claimant was convincing, this blinkered approach not taking into account the coaching she had, because the case worker did not look. If you don't look you cannot find.

Some cases are referred back to the Court of Appeal, but others, more or less identical as to points of law are not. Britain is judged on its ability to admit mistakes. The unwillingness to do so reflects badly on the heads of state and the administration.

The perceived unfavourable treatment of some persons suggests undeclared links to secret societies such as the Masons, where many Judges and it appears most of the CPS are Masons, not to mention the Police forces in England that are rife with members with links to business men and their families, where favours are called in, and frequently result in fit-ups. Try then to find out which police officers are masons. There is supposed to be a voluntary register, but when you ask to see it, you will be told that this is the subject of data protection - where there is supposed to be transparency.

With this in mind, and with the CCRC currently not bound by Articles 6 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and especially not bound by Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights (where Article 13 has been deliberately omitted from the HRA 1998) - and where the Sexual Offences Act 2003 violates Article 6 - in reversing the burden of proof, we wonder what use is a safety net that is actually window dressing for those seeking justice. So much for European Law, but with Brexit looming large the United Kingdom is teetering on the brink of isolation harking after the British Empire where slavery and the exploitation of the resources of other nations was routine.

Under International Law, the CCRC is in violation of 1, 2, 7, 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where the United Kingdom is a member of the United Nations that like the European Convention, cherry picks what Human Rights it will accord its citizens.

It appears then that the CCRC are part of the problem within the British justice system and more part of a state sanctioned eugenics programme, that involves single judges, the courts, the police and prosecutors - all of which are appointed by and ultimately take their instructions from the Head of State, currently HM Queen Elizabeth II.

It is an interesting situation for study by any sociologist or criminologist as to the level of corruption. In particular we are following one case that has been referred to the CCRC, but so far they have failed to investigate several glaring errors in the trial process, one medical and other evidential.

The medical inconsistencies are the most damning, where the Jury were invited by the trial Judge to become medical experts, when at the very least they should have been told to ignore the medical testimony where the state's so-called expert admitted that it was controversial. Whereas and as a matter of fact, the girl being examined had a tightly closed hymen that could not be opened ("even with labial traction") when she was claiming multiple penetrations over a long period of time. Incongruous to say the least, but when confronted by this evidence why didn't Melanie Liebenberg complete the test using a colposcope to obtain scientific measurements for both the prosecution and the defence. The only reason we can think of is that she knew it would reveal conclusively that the girl had not been penetrated, and if that was true the prosecution case would collapse.

The marks that were said to be suspicious on which the defendant was convicted turned out to be a naturally occurring feature of females of all ages. Put yourself in the position of the Jury for a moment. You've been told by an expert that such marks are suspicious and the defence has not called an expert to challenge that assertion. You would of course convict. But it was not true.

Now imagine that it was explained to you that with the multiple penetrations claimed (Judge Cedric Joseph said 30-40 occasions) the hymen to vaginal wall measurement is reduced and the hymen would be open, or open-able. That might put a doubt in your mind as to the claims - and you have to be sure to convict.

There is also the matter of the defending solicitor and barrister not calling any one of 17 witnesses in relation to character and and the police failing to secure the crime scene.

In addition, it appears that the police (Sussex) in this case were heavily involved in with Wealden District Council in failing to investigate 12 complaints, 11 unrelated to the victim of this travesty of justice. It appears that the Sussex Police were then seriously biased, where the victim (Nelson Kruschandl) complained to Derek Holness, Sheelagh Douglas, Lesley Barakchizadeh and Charles Lant (WDCs Chief Executives) and Giles York (Chief Constable) of the Sussex Police about perverting the course of justice in failing to investigate (no interviews and no crime number) the allegations of malfeasance in public office.

In respect of the failure to refer this matter to the Appeal Court, the High Court asserted that the CCRC were entitled to take a view - even where they have failed to investigate the virginity issue and the trial Judge summing up incorrectly concerning the work diary of a witness in the case.

What the High Court decision means in lay terms is that the CCRC can do what they like concerning Human Rights abuses. They can free one person who has good connections and they can subdue another where the Crown wants them to, such as a person born in South Africa who has been battling the Sussex Police and Wealden District Council for many years prior to the ultimate put down: a beautifully contrived sexual conviction.

In terms of Discrimination the CCRC have been acting unlawfully. It remains to be seen if they are capable of remedying the situation in time to prevent the matter going to the United Nations for advice.

CCRC OFFICERS 2018

 Jonathan Baume - Sally Berlin - Liz Calderbank - Caroline Corby - Rachel Ellis - Richard Foster - Justin Hawkins
Celia Hughes - Andre Katz - Karen Kneller - Stephen Leach - Linda Lee - Alexandra Marks - Sharon Persaud
Jennifer Portway - Andrew Rennison - David James Smith - Robert Ward

CCRC CONTACTS

Switchboard and fax
Telephone: 0121 233 1473
Fax: 0121 232 0899

Postal address

5 St Philip's Place
Birmingham
B3 2PW

Website: https://ccrc.gov.uk/

DX address (a mail system often used by solicitors): DX: 715466 Birmingham 41

Emails

For information: info@ccrc.gov.uk
For media enquiries: press@ccrc.gov.uk
For recruitment: hr@ccrc.gov.uk
For complaints: complaints@ccrc.gov.uk

Media enquiries

Justin Hawkins on:

Tel: 0121 232 0906
Mobile: 07947 355 231
Email: press@ccrc.gov.uk

https://ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/commissioners/

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/justin-hawkins/44/367/185