CCRC leadership ‘unable to learn from its own mistakes’, with ‘root and branch reform’ required, Justice Committee warns

The Criminal Cases Review Commission's (CCRC) leadership “has shown a remarkable inability to learn from its own mistakes” despite being an organisation designed to identify failures within the criminal justice system, a report by the Justice Committee has warned.

MPs on the cross-party Committee chaired by Andy Slaughter concluded: “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”.

In January, the CCRC's Chair Helen Pitcher, resigned in the wake of a decision by an independent panel. It had been convened by the Lord Chancellor following concerns over Ms Pitcher's response to Andrew Malkinson's acquittal and after a decision by the CCRC Board that she should stay on as chair.

The Justice Committee called on the senior leadership of the CCRC to give evidence following Ms Pitcher's resignation and public criticisms of the organisation. MPs questioned Karen Kneller, Chief Executive Officer, and Amanda Pearce, Casework Operations Director on April 29 in the absence of a permanent or interim chair.

The Committee's report on leadership of the CCRC published today (Friday, 23 May) comes ahead of the expected review of how the organisation operates to be conducted by the yet to be appointed interim Chair. The report highlights the key issues identified in the Committee's evidence taking.

On the CCRC's approach to Andrew Malkinson's acquittal, the Committee concluded: “It should not have taken an independent review for the CCRC to apologise to Andrew Malkinson. The public statements of the then Chair of the CCRC, Helen Pitcher, after Andrew Malkinson's acquittal were woefully inadequate and showed a worrying lack of understanding of the potential damage to the CCRC's reputation and public confidence that would almost inevitably arise from a failure to admit its mistakes and to apologise.

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

The Committee described the CCRC leadership's handling of the independent Henley Report which followed as “incompetent”, concluding: “The level of delay and the attempt to minimise the damage to the CCRC's reputation were a spectacular failure of leadership.”

It added: “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 focussed 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.”

The report noted that the CCRC “has now been without an interim chair for four months” adding: “This is an unacceptably long period of time for the organisation to be without a chair, particularly following a difficult and turbulent period.”

On the issues of resourcing and the relationship with the Ministry of Justice, the Committee recommended that the forthcoming review “should include an assessment of the sufficiency

of the Commission's current level of funding and what resource increases it might need in future years”.  It concluded that “significant budget reductions imposed on the Commission

in previous decades must have had a lasting effect on its ability to conduct timely and comprehensive investigations, especially when combined with an increasing caseload”.

Operating without a full quota of commissioners and delays to their recruitment are serious and urgent issues for the CCRC, the report said, adding the CCRC leadership “does not appear to us to be treating this issue with the seriousness it warrants”. The report noted that the Ministry of Justice's approach to commissioner recruitment, including the recruitment of an interim chair, is also “concerning”. The Committee recommended that the “terms of appointment for Commissioners should be reviewed to enable them to make a greater contribution to the day-to-day running of the CCRC”.

It went on: “We are concerned about the CCRC's independence and its relationship with the Ministry of Justice. Independence requires the chair and senior leadership to prioritise and defend the interests and constitutional functions of the institution above all. In practice, this does not appear to be happening…We recommend that the interim chair considers the dynamic of the relationship between the Commission and the Ministry of Justice and how the Commission's leadership could be supported to take a more robust approach to its dealings with the department.”

On the CCRC's remote-first policy, the Committee said it was “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, adding: “Fundamentally, we question whether fully remote working is right for the Commission and urge the interim chair to evaluate its impact on the Commission's efficiency, the quality of casework and on staff wellbeing and morale… 

“We recommend that the senior leadership should have a regular presence in the office, particularly in light of recent events and the high-profile criticism directed at the Commission. In our view, it is imperative that the organisation moves towards a hybrid model to ensure that it operates more effectively.”

Chair of the Justice Committee and Labour MP Andy Slaughter MP said: “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. It has moved to remote-first, which is out of step with the rest of the public sector and seems unsuited to the nature of their work.  

“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 leadership of the organisation failed to respond adequately to Andrew Malkinson's acquittal and to the publication of the independent review.  

“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. 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.”

He added: “The Ministry of Justice must take a degree of responsibility for not putting a plan in place to replace (Chair) Helen Pitcher. 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. 

“The Committee was concerned to receive comments on Karen Kneller's evidence from Chris Henley KC and from Chris Webb, the independent communications consultant employed by the CCRC, to the effect that she had misled the Committee. Without making a finding on whether the Committee had been misled and giving Ms Kneller an opportunity to comment on the allegations, the Committee nonetheless found the manner in which she gave evidence a further indicator of her unsuitability to continue to lead the CCRC. 

“The Committee 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.”