In recent years, there has been considerable criticism of the process for re- opening cases which have been formally completed, but require review for some reason. Based on my experience with this case, I will be joining the call for a better system. I hope you will too.
The main flaw in the present process seems to me to be that it continues the adversarial character of the completed process, with the respondent protecting their own position rather than making a genuine inquiry into the appellant’s claims.
It also continues the difficult communication between science and the law. In putting the application together, the expert must be kept at arms length from the legal team. In the present case this led to a number of misrepresentations of the scientific findings, as well as some confusion caused by the very different styles of legal and scientific argument.