Current position
Two processes. Two different questions.
The CCRC considers whether there is a real possibility that the conviction would be overturned. The IOPC considers police complaints under a different legal framework. They should not be confused.
Active application
Criminal Cases Review Commission
A new application was registered on 6 October 2025 under reference 01260/2025.
- The April 2026 issues letter shows that the CCRC understands the case to include forensic handling, witness reliability, alternative suspects, non-disclosure and the scientific basis of the wall marks.
- The CCRC has said that material from earlier reviews is also being considered.
- The former Case Review Manager, C Murphy, has since left.
- The campaign archive does not contain an itemised confirmation that every May and August 2026 submission was opened and transferred to the new manager.
What is now needed: the new manager’s name, a complete incoming-document schedule, confirmation of the handover and the next review date.
Read the CCRC case summary
Awaiting a substantive answer
Independent Office for Police Conduct
The complaint concerns criticism of the late Superintendent William Kerr’s investigation and later accounts of the forensic evidence.
- Supporting material was supplied to the IOPC.
- A further “final call” and supporting package were sent on 14 August 2026.
- The campaign archive does not presently contain an itemised IOPC acknowledgment or substantive decision.
- The absence of a response in the archive does not itself prove improper complaint handling.
What is now needed: the complaint reference, a jurisdiction decision, the named owner, the stage reached, the next step and a date for a reasoned response.
What the complaint alleges—and what it does not yet prove
The complaint asks whether statements attributed to Kerr about the wall-stain evidence and investigative record can be reconciled with the original forensic documents and contemporary records.
The material supports serious questions about record quality, possible overstatement and investigative method. It should not be described as proving dishonesty, corruption, forgery or perjury unless an appropriate investigation reaches that conclusion.
What could materially change the CCRC assessment?
- A current inventory showing what representative JH1 and JH2 material survives, how it has been stored and how much has been consumed.
- A current case-specific scientific opinion addressing whether post-2019 blood-provenance techniques can safely examine the remaining material.
- The results, data or supervised conclusion from the University of Lausanne work carried out in 2022–23.
- Contemporary records capable of testing Adam May’s much later recollection, including his 1992 interview and the defence witness file.
- New primary material—not simply a repetition of earlier submissions—capable of changing the assessment of the alternative-suspect or forensic-record issues.
Status wording based on material reviewed through 8 October 2026. Update this page when a new CCRC or IOPC letter is received.