CCRC chief must go

MPs say Karen Kneller’s position is no longer tenable

It is no longer tenable for Karen Kneller to remain chief executive of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), an all-party committee of MPs says in a report published this morning.

The Commons justice committee, which did not say whether it thought Kneller should resign or be sacked, reached its conclusion in the light of her oral evidence to the committee on 29 April and a written response from Chris Henley KC. His “damning” report into how the CCRC had dealt with the Andrew Malkinson miscarriage of justice was not published until nearly six months after he had submitted it to the commission, a fact that was not disclosed at the time.

Karen Kneller giving evidence to MPs last month

Today’s report says:

The leadership’s handling of the Henley report was utterly incompetent. The level of delay and the attempt to minimise the damage to the CCRC’s reputation were a spectacular failure of leadership…

We cannot perform our scrutiny function if witnesses provide incomplete or partial responses to our questions. The information provided since the session establishes that Karen Kneller omitted important information that would have provided a more accurate account of how the CCRC handled the Henley report.

As a result of our concerns regarding the performance of the CCRC and the unpersuasive evidence Karen Kneller provided to the committee, we no longer feel that it is tenable for her to continue as chief executive of the CCRC.

When should she go?

The implication of this conclusion is that Kneller should leave the CCRC immediately. But it is difficult to see how the body that reviews suspected miscarriages of justice and decides whether they should be referred to the Court of Appeal could operate without either of its most senior figures.

The Ministry of Justice has not been able to announce even an interim head since Helen Pitcher resigned as chair on 14 January, suggesting that none of the remaining commissioners was willing — or is considered able — to run the statutory watchdog during the search for Pitcher’s replacement. Four months is “an unacceptably long period of time for the organisation to be without a chair,” said the committee, “particularly following a difficult and turbulent period”.

Panel report

Pitcher resigned after an independent panel concluded by a majority that she should no longer head the CCRC. Successive justice secretaries had lost confidence in her because of her handling of the Malkinson case. In his report to the CCRC, Henley concluded that it should not have needed three applications before the case reached the appeal court.

I published extracts from the independent panel’s report in January. The full report has not been released — even to the CCRC or to the justice committee, which was reduced to quoting from my extracts. The MPs recommend that the full report should now be shared with the commissioners.

“By failing to offer a timely apology and by seeking to claim credit for the acquittal,” say the MPs today, “the leadership of the CCRC caused significant damage to the organisation’s reputation.” They gave the impression, the report added, that they were more concerned with defending their own reputation than offering an honest assessment of how they had failed Malkinson.

Henley report

Henley’s report was received by Kneller on 29 January last year. She treated it as if it was a draft and tried to get it amended. Further changes were made and the report was shared with Malkinson’s representatives on 20 May. A general election was called on 23 May and the CCRC leadership decided that the report could not be published until after the state opening of parliament on 17 July. The committee does not accept Kneller’s argument — and that of her casework operations director Amanda Pearce — that Henley’s report could not be published during the election period.

Kneller was asked about the resignation of a so-called crisis communications consultant engaged to handle publication of the Henley report. In the committee’s view, Kneller’s answers “misrepresented the true position, which was that Chris Webb had communicated significant concerns over both the causes and consequences of the delays to the publication of the report”.

The committee accepted that it was appropriate for the CCRC to provide feedback to Henley on the version of the report he had provided. However, it was inappropriate for the CCRC to suggest to Henley that his report should not draw broader conclusions on the CCRC as an organisation based on his analysis of the CCRC’s handling of the Malkinson’s case.

It continued:

In her evidence on 29 April and her letter on 20 May, Karen Kneller denied that the CCRC had attempted to water down the report in any way. Karen Kneller did not inform us in her evidence that one of the reasons the Henley report was delayed was that the CCRC had expressly requested changes to minimise the impact of Henley’s findings and conclusions.

These requests did not represent “additional information”, “typographical errors” or “factual issues”. In our view, it was entirely inappropriate to commission an independent review by a leading criminal lawyer and then to seek to suggest that the reviewer should alter their findings.

We are disappointed that Karen Kneller’s letter on 20 May does not even acknowledge that asking Chris Henley KC to limit the breadth of his conclusions and remove potential “soundbites” was in any way problematic…

In our view, Chris Henley KC’s assessment of the work done by the CCRC was damning. It is true of course that the review focused only on one case, but it is also clear beyond doubt that Chris Henley KC’s conclusions have significant implications for the CCRC’s overall approach to its casework. The mistakes made in relation to Andrew Malkinson’s application should have been taken as evidence of systemic problems within the CCRC.

Training

In her resignation letter, Pitcher said she had been advised by departing commissioners to remove the senior management team. She formed the judgment that the chief executive, “with appropriate mentoring, development and support”, was capable, along with the board, of overhauling its processes, leadership and governance.

Kneller told the committee that she had undergone training at the INSEAD business school, near Paris. Asked why she had chosen to be trained abroad, she said the school had been recommended to her by Pitcher, who had connections with INSEAD at the time.

The MPs concluded that this was a potential conflict of interest. “We were not satisfied by the justifications given by Karen Kneller for her attendance at expensive training courses in France using public money,” they said.

Recruitment

Kneller was criticised for not lobbying harder for a full complement of commissioners. But the Ministry of Justice was also to blame:

We are shocked that negotiations over the fee paid to commissioners took as long as three years to resolve and that a recruitment exercise that appears to have begun in April 2024 will take until the end of 2025 to conclude.

We are concerned that the current terms of appointment for commissioners are not sufficiently attractive to recruit and retain the best possible candidates.

Working from home

One of the most jaw-dropping moments during the evidence session last month was when Kneller and Pearce, who both live in the West Midlands, were asked how often the came into the CCRC office in Birmingham. Kneller said “one or two days every…” and those watching assumed the next word would be “week”.

It turned out to be “maybe one or two days every couple of months or so”. The CCRC had moved to working from home because it could not recruit staff locally, she explained.

“We were shocked by the CCRC leadership’s decision — quite out of line with the rest of the public sector, where hybrid working prevails — to turn the organisation fully remote,” the committee said.

“We struggle to understand how investigative case work, with its complexities and potential for distress, is suitable to be undertaken fully from home, even with the most robust virtual support in place. We find it difficult to see how staff can readily and spontaneously get advice, talk through difficult issues or share concerns — with each other and with commissioners — in the way they had done in the office.”

Conclusion

The committee concluded:

For an organisation that is designed to identify failures within the criminal justice system, the CCRC’s leadership has shown a remarkable inability to learn from its own mistakes…

We recommend that the interim chair’s review considers how the relationship between the commissioners and the senior leadership team can be made to operate more effectively.

Andy Slaughter MP, the committee’s chair, added:

There is clear evidence in our report that the situation for the CCRC has deteriorated significantly and it now requires root-and-branch reform. It lacks a chair and has struggled to secure a sufficient number of commissioners.

An independent review has found a number of significant failures in how it dealt with one of the most significant miscarriages of justice of recent times.

The CCRC is a hugely important organisation and the senior leadership could have done much more in their evidence to reassure us that they understood the seriousness of the criticisms it has faced and the need for an overhaul of the organisation to rebuild public trust and provide applicants to the CCRC with the justice they deserve.

CCRC response

Kneller has not responded to the committee’s conclusion that her position is no longer tenable.

Instead, a CCRC spokesperson said:

We note the recommendations in the justice select committee report and the committee’s view that its findings should “inform the approach of the next chair of the CCRC” in reviewing how we operate.

We look forward to an announcement on the appointment of an interim chair and to working with them in an organisation deeply committed to finding, investigating and referring potential miscarriages of justice.

Update 2 July: Kneller has resigned. Amanda Pearce, director of casework operations, has been appointed interim chief executive.

Dame Vera Baird, who was appointed chair of the CCRC last month, said:

The CCRC has a vital role to play in the criminal justice system, but confidence in the organisation has been badly damaged. Confidence in our work must be restored.

I thank Karen for her work at the CCRC over many years.

Kneller became chief executive in 2013. She joined the CCRC as director of casework in 2005.