CCRC chair resigns

Helen Pitcher says a head had to roll — and that head was hers

The chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) resigned this afternoon after an independent panel concluded by a majority that she should no longer head the body that reviews suspected miscarriages of justice and decides whether they should be referred to the Court of Appeal. Successive justice secretaries had lost confidence in Helen Pitcher because of her handling of the Andrew Malkinson case.

Malkinson was convicted in 2004 of two offences of rape and attempting to choke, suffocate or strangle a woman with intent to commit rape. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and released on licence in 2020. He had steadfastly maintained his innocence.

In 2023, Malkinson’s case was referred by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal, which cleared him later that year. But two earlier applications had been turned down by the CCRC in 2012 and 2020.

In a report commissioned by the CCRC, Chris Henley KC concluded last year that it should not have needed three applications before the case reached the appeal court.

Helen Pitcher OBE

Pitcher said this afternoon that, like a former Post Office chairman, she had been made to take the rap for the failures of others. In her resignation letter, she told the justice secretary Shabana Mahmood that Mahmood’s predecessor, Alex Chalk KC, had chosen to scapegoat her at an early stage. “A head had to roll,” Pitcher said, “and I was chosen for that role.”

She continued:

I do feel I have been scapegoated for entirely legitimate operational decisions that were not handled by any non-executive CCRC chair before I joined the organisation. The original rejection of Mr Malkinson’s appeal was almost a decade before my time: on my watch, armed with new DNA evidence which we commissioned, we were able to resolve the situation and set Mr Malkinson free…

Whilst wishing the organisation well, I worry it may prove extremely difficult to find a new chair prepared to take on this important role on the understanding that, like me, they will be held personally responsible for historical failures over which they will have had no say.

Here is the full letter:

Judicial Appointments

In a podcast interview that I shall be publishing here tomorrow morning, Pitcher told me she intended to complete the remaining year of her appointment as chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission.

“I have a lot to do there,” she explained. “I do not consider there should be a read-across from the CCRC — and the panel judgment there — to what I actually do at the JAC.”

She hoped the justice secretary would agree. “But I have always said — as I am now doing with the CCRC — I will do whatever is right for the organisation.”

Advice to the King

To underpin their independence, commissioners are appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the prime minister. They can be removed only by the King.

After Pitcher’s board discouraged her from resigning, Mahmood set up a three-person panel to consider representations from both sides.

Its members were:

• Dame Sue Langley DBE (independent chair)

• Amy Holmes CB OBE (justice secretary’s representative)

• Rob Ward CBE KC (hon) (CCRC’s representative)

Although the government’s “protocol for termination” speaks of “representatives”, the panel members say in their unpublished 18-page report that they regard themselves as impartial.

Mahmood told the panel that Pitcher was “unable or unfit” to discharge her functions as a member of the commission. The justice secretary argued that the CCRC chair had failed to meet three of her responsibilities:

1. to work with the chief executive to provide strong leadership and adherence to good governance principles

2. to inspire confidence in the role of the CCRC; to be a visible, effective advocate and ambassador for the CCRC, raising its external profile, including in the media

3. to lead the board, setting the overall direction of the CCRC in line with the CCRC’s statutory remit, vision and core purpose and the responsible minister’s wider strategic priorities

By a majority, the panel upheld all the allegations. Ward dissented on each ground.

Ground 1

Mahmood said:

I note that there were six months between the initial referral by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal and the hearing at which Mr Malkinson’s conviction was found to be unsafe; and three weeks between that hearing and the chair’s meeting with the department.

During this time, there was significant and sustained national media attention on the case. In my view, the chair should have been providing challenge to the CCRC executive over the handling of the case during this period, such that she had assurances on whether the CCRC had handled the case appropriately.

Her failure to do so demonstrates a failure to meet the terms of appointment.

The majority concluded:

In light of the impact on the public trust in the CCRC and the secretary of state’s confidence in Ms Pitcher, the panel considered that Ms Pitcher should have done more to challenge and drill down into the information provided to her before providing categoric assurances to the former lord chancellor.

It is the responsibility of the chair to have robust oversight, to hold the chief executive officer and broader executive to account for operational delivery and to be ultimately responsible for the public confidence in the CCRC and confidence of the responsible minister.

Given the gravity of the matters relied upon by the former lord chancellor, the panel agree with the secretary of state on this point. Ms Pitcher failed to meet her responsibilities in this respect.

Ground 2

Mahmood said:

Wider concerns raised by the Henley report demonstrate a failure to meet the terms of appointment, specifically the responsibility to “inspire confidence in the role of the CCRC”.

The majority concluded:

Public confidence in the CCRC has been eroded by the failings in Mr Malkinson’s case, the concerns raised in the Henley report and the public statements made. The apology issued on 18 April 2024 saw the CCRC take credit for the sentence being quashed rather than focus on acknowledging the devastating impact the CCRC’s failings had on Mr Malkinson and the victim…

It is the responsibility of the chair to inspire confidence in the CCRC and to maintain trust in its profile. The panel finds that there was a series of poor judgements by Ms Pitcher in the press statements made and in her failure to apologise promptly and unconditionally.

Combined, they undermine confidence in the role of the CCRC and in Ms Pitcher as chair. The panel agree that these amount to a failure in Ms Pitcher’s duties as chair to “inspire confidence in the role of the CCRC”.

Ground 3

Mahmood said:

Handling publication of the Henley report demonstrates a failure to meet the terms of appointment, specifically the responsibility to “lead the board, setting the overall direction of the CCRC in line with the CCRC’s statutory remit, vision and core purpose and the responsible minister’s wider strategic priorities”.

The majority concluded:

In spite of the good work by Ms Pitcher to “sort out” the board following the tailored review, the panel considers that there was no evidence that Ms Pitcher had sufficiently challenged the performance of the chief executive officer — a key responsibility of an organisation’s chair. The panel concludes that Ms Pitcher has failed in her duties in relation to the Malkinson case and response to the Henley report.

Panel conclusion

The majority said:

On the balance of probabilities, the panel’s view is that Ms Pitcher has relied too heavily on the executive and has made a number of judgements which have culminated in a series of reputational failings by the CCRC — failings that have had a detrimental impact on the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system, the role of the CCRC in investigating miscarriages of justice and in Ms Pitcher’s reputation as CCRC chair.

It is the responsibility of a chair to use their experience and to exercise judgement, to carry the risk and to be accountable when significant issues occur. The panel noted that Ms Pitcher had originally offered to resign if it were the right thing to do for the CCRC but a mutually agreeable press statement could not be agreed. On discussing this with the board and others, she had been persuaded to stay on.

Whilst the panel recognised that Ms Pitcher had the support of the CCRC board, the damage to the reputation of the CCRC is still considerable and the chair is accountable.

In summary, the chair is ultimately responsible in exercising judgement, for the performance of the organisation and for retaining external confidence in the organisation.

In light of the reputational damage and the points covered above, the panel did not feel that she could continue. The panel’s decision to His Majesty the King is that the chair should be removed.

Explaining his dissent, Ward said:

Although I do not share the conclusions of the other panel members, I do not underestimate the significance of the CCRC’s failings of Mr Malkinson as revealed by the Henley report, which are rightly of great concern to the secretary of state.

The report makes stringent criticisms of the CCRC’s handling of the case, including the criticisms of Ms Pitcher reflected in the referral letter.

However, for the reasons given above, I am not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that those criticisms can properly be said to show that Ms Pitcher is unfit for the role of CCRC chair.

In the interview we recorded earlier today, Pitcher explained some of the comments she made in her resignation letter and responded to the panel’s conclusions. You can listen to it here from 6am tomorrow.