•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This study examines to examine the comparative framework of criminal cases review between Indonesia and the United Kingdom (UK), focusing on the scope of grounds and institutional framework. Both jurisdictions recognize post-conviction review as an extraordinary legal remedy intended to prevent miscarriages of justice. Indonesia employs revision (PK –Peninjauan Kembali) as a restrictive system, similar to the Court of Appeal. The UK adopts a broader and more flexible model through Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). The study used secondary data and literature reviews, with a comparative legal approach grounded in normative and institutional analysis, assessing the legal structures, procedural mechanisms, and underlying philosophies that shape post-conviction review in each jurisdiction while identifying their key similarities and differences. The findings indicate that Indonesia prioritizes the stability and finality of judgments under the Criminal Procedure Code. In contrast, the UK emphasizes a more flexible method, which embraced the flexibility of continuous review to protect against miscarriages of justice. This study proposes a thoughtful examination of potential lessons that Indonesia could draw from British experience, such as adopting the CCRC role as the front gate of investigation before entering the appeal court. It can start by strengthening the quality of the preliminary trial in the Criminal Procedure Code and its practice as the gatekeeper of the criminal trial process.

DOI

10.22304/pjih.v13n1.ax

Download

Share

COinS