有關刑事非常救濟制度之變革，向來是我國刑事法學界所關心重要議題 之一，但可惜的是，向來之討論不免有所侷限，因而似有思考另闢蹊徑之必 要。本文以為，英國以刑案審查委員會（The Criminal Cases Review Commission）為中心相關法制，或許可提供必要之借鏡。首先，從比較法觀點，英國刑案審查委員會以其屬獨立機關之地位，執掌刑事非常救濟程序發動，確有其相當特殊性，有別於傳統非楊即墨制度設計，即不是由受判決人（被告）便是由檢察體系（檢察總長）發動非常救濟程序，是屬制度上之創新。其次，英國刑案審查委員會法制之特殊性，是在於是項機制所被賦予之調查權限，以及在該委員會調查過程中，受判決人所擁有參與機會。復次，如與傳統法制相較，英國刑案審查委員會除顯現區分為受判決人利益與不利益之整體制度設計外，更展現了將事實與法律救濟合一之可能性。再次，於此一法制下，更對於我國法制傳統所關切之重要議題，諸如訴訟程序違法於非常上訴程序所扮演角色，以及再審程序上新證據意義等難題，提供新的視野與可能之解決途徑。最後，英國法最重要之借鏡，或許是在於將所謂真實無辜（actual or factual innocence）救濟，作為刑事非常救濟宗旨之一；也就是當個案中事實與法律錯誤皆不明顯，甚至是不存在，但該案判決結果受到質疑與挑戰時，如何落實對真實無辜被告之保障，特別是在制度設計與實務運作上究應如何因應，英國以刑案審查委員會為中心之法制，或可提供吾人重要之參考。

The establishment of the UK Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1997 ushered in a new era of the system of post-conviction review. This new model of post-conviction review makes three major contributions in terms of comparative law. First of all, under this institution, an independent institution, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, is responsible for initiating the procedure of post-conviction review. In the traditional model, it is either the defendants or prosecutors to handle with the launching of the procedure. Secondly, looked as a whole, this new model provides new perspectives on some substantial old issues, such as the function of iprocedural irregularities and the meaning of new evidences in the post-conviction review, as well as offer people in Taiwan new topics for thoughts, such as the investigative powers of the CCRC. Thirdly, probably most importantly, the new model reminds us the possible way to deal with the paramount issue of actual innocence, which is the core concern of remedying wrongful convictions in any legal system.