MPs have called on the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s chief exec to go as part of ‘root and branch reform’ required to fix the troubled watchdog body which presently has no chair. The House of Commons’ justice committee chair Andy Slaughter said that the CCRC’s remaining leadership had shown ‘a remarkable inability to learn from its own mistakes’ despite ‘being an organisation designed to identify failures within the criminal justice system’. The watchdog’s immediate past chair Helen Pitcher reluctantly resigned in January – months after the Lord Chancellor had recommended she go – and claiming to have been made a ‘scapegoat’ for its bungling of the Andrew Malkinson case.

The report is published today and follows a bruising encounter between CCRC chief exec Karen Kneller and head of casework Amanda Pearce (here). It was revealed last weekend that Kneller had given the committee misleading information over it’s handling of a report by Chris Henley KC into the Malkinson case – see here. ‘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,’ Slaughter said.

A CCRC spokesperson said in repose to today’s report 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.’

‘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.’
Andy Slaughter MP

Nothing to see here
Talking this morning to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Andy Slaughter called the response ‘complacent’ and the response only ‘reemphasised our concerns’. ‘It just says “nothing to see here”. It’s a good example of why the organisation needs root and branch reform.’

In the report published by the justice committee today, the MPs conclude: ‘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.’

It continued: ‘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 Henley Report as ‘incompetent’. ‘The level of delay and the attempt to minimise the damage to the CCRC’s reputation were a spectacular failure of leadership,’ it said. ‘In our view, Chris Henley KC’s assessment of the work done by the CCRC was damning,’ the report said. ‘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.’

On the four month absence of a chair, the MPs said it was ‘an unacceptably long period of time for the organisation to be without a chair, particularly following a difficult and turbulent period’. On resourcing and the commission’s 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.’

The Justice Committee session revealed that its two most senior members of staff, Kneller and Pearce, only come into the office ‘maybe one or two days every couple of months’; for almost two years the CCRC has had just nine commissioners despite being required by statute to have a minimum of 11; these commissioners, who are supposed to embody the independence of the CCRC, are on contracts for only 52 days a year; and the organisation was, in the words of committee member, ‘profoundly understaffed’.

According to the Justice Committee, operating without a full quota of commissioners and its recruitment problems were ‘serious and urgent issues’ for the CCRC and its leadership ‘does not appear to us to be treating this issue with the seriousness it warrants’. MPs also noted that the MoJ’s approach to commissioner recruitment, including the recruitment of an interim chair, was also ‘concerning’. A justice minister announced that a candidate had been selected but not yet named. 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’.

The MPs expressed 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 to introduce its remote-first policy – ‘quite out of line with the rest of the public sector where hybrid working prevails’.  ‘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,’ it added.

The MPs have called on the senior leadership to have ‘a regular presence in the office’. ‘In our view, it is imperative that the organisation moves towards a hybrid model to ensure that it operates more effectively.’

There is clear evidence in our report that the situation for the CCRC has deteriorated significantly and it now requires root and branch reform,’ said Slaughter. ‘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.’