Recommendations & Conclusions
14 items
2
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
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 …
Read more
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. (Conclusion, Paragraph 18)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's conclusion that the previous Chair's statements and handling of the issues damaged the CCRC's reputation. They note the Chair's resignation and that the interim Chair has been tasked with a review to restore confidence in the CCRC's ability to …
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
3
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
Karen Kneller’s statements on 29 April in relation to the version of the report sent to the CCRC by Chris Henley KC in January 2024 are problematic. Chris Henley KC was entitled to be concerned that Karen Kneller had wrongly suggested that he was somehow partly responsible for the delays …
Read more
Karen Kneller’s statements on 29 April in relation to the version of the report sent to the CCRC by Chris Henley KC in January 2024 are problematic. Chris Henley KC was entitled to be concerned that Karen Kneller had wrongly suggested that he was somehow partly responsible for the delays in finalising the report. We welcome the clarifications provided by Karen Kneller in her letter on 20 May, but we regret that these were only provided because of Chris Henley KC’s further correspondence. (Conclusion, Paragraph 21) 43
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the committee's concerns about Karen Kneller's performance and evidence, noting her subsequent resignation on 2 July 2025, which they see as an opportunity to refresh CCRC leadership and restore confidence.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
5
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
Chris Webb’s resignation letter to Karen Kneller set out several concerns over the delays to the publication of the Henley report. When asked about the reason why Chris Webb resigned in the evidence session on 29 April, Karen Kneller’s answers did not reflect the content of Chris Webb’s resignation letter. …
Read more
Chris Webb’s resignation letter to Karen Kneller set out several concerns over the delays to the publication of the Henley report. When asked about the reason why Chris Webb resigned in the evidence session on 29 April, Karen Kneller’s answers did not reflect the content of Chris Webb’s resignation letter. Karen Kneller’s responses indicated that she was aware that he had “hoped the report would have been published earlier”. Karen Kneller has since provided clarification to us as to the intention of her answers to this line of questioning. However, in our view Karen 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. (Conclusion, Paragraph 29)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the committee's concerns about Karen Kneller's performance and evidence, noting her resignation and the ongoing review by the interim Chair, which includes an evaluation of the senior leadership team to restore public confidence.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
6
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
We accept that it was appropriate for the CCRC to provide feedback to Chris Henley KC on the version of the report that had been shared with them. However, it was inappropriate for the CCRC to suggest to Chris Henley KC that his report should not draw broader conclusions on …
Read more
We accept that it was appropriate for the CCRC to provide feedback to Chris Henley KC on the version of the report that had been shared with them. However, it was inappropriate for the CCRC to suggest to Chris Henley KC that his report should not draw broader conclusions on the CCRC as an organisation and its casework based on his analysis of the CCRC’s handling of Andrew Malkinson’s case. The CCRC’s leadership should have accepted that the gravity of the failings in the handling in the Andrew Malkinson case would lead to concerns that it was highly unlikely to be an isolated example. In fact, the extracts from the CCRC’s letter to Chris Henley KC on 11 March 2024 indicate that the leadership were operating under the misguided assumption that the fallout from the report could be contained if they simply accepted the recommendations and referred to the fact that the findings “were limited to this case”. (Conclusion, Paragraph 36)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's conclusion that the CCRC's handling of the Henley report damaged its reputation, citing the previous Chair's resignation. They note that the interim Chair has been tasked with a review, which includes assessing the CCRC's effectiveness, understanding of the ‘real …
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
7
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
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 …
Read more
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 44 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. (Conclusion, Paragraph 37)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government notes Ms Kneller's resignation and agrees the handling of the report damaged the CCRC's reputation. It outlines an ongoing interim Chair's review, which includes evaluating senior leadership capability to restore public confidence.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
8
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
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. (Conclusion, Paragraph 38)
Government response AI summary
The government notes Ms Kneller's resignation and agrees the handling of the report damaged the CCRC's reputation. It states that an interim Chair's review is underway to evaluate senior leadership capability and restore public confidence.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
16
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
The CCRC has now been without an interim chair for four months. This is an unacceptably long period of time for the organisation to be without a chair, particularly following a difficult and turbulent period. (Conclusion, Paragraph 51)
Government response AI summary
The government agrees the period without an interim Chair was unacceptably long and turbulent. However, it justifies the delay by stating the importance of securing an exceptional individual with strong leadership and criminal justice experience for the role.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
18
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
We were not satisfied by the justifications given by Karen Kneller for her attendance at expensive training courses in France, using public money. There is a potential conflict of interest in Karen Kneller attending the course at INSEAD on the recommendation of the then Chair who held a board-level position …
Read more
We were not satisfied by the justifications given by Karen Kneller for her attendance at expensive training courses in France, using public money. There is a potential conflict of interest in Karen Kneller attending the course at INSEAD on the recommendation of the then Chair who held a board-level position at the business school at that time. It is not clear from Karen Kneller’s answers whether proper consideration was given to this. (Conclusion, Paragraph 64) Resources and relationship with the Ministry of Justice
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledged the committee's concerns regarding the CCRC's then Chief Executive, Karen Kneller, noting her resignation on 2 July 2025 and framing this as an opportunity to refresh the organisation's leadership.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
21
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
Operating without a full quota of commissioners and delays to their recruitment are serious and urgent issues for the CCRC. However, Karen Kneller’s evidence did not appear to reflect this, demonstrated by her response that recruitment is not up to the Commission. While the Ministry of Justice is ultimately responsible, …
Read more
Operating without a full quota of commissioners and delays to their recruitment are serious and urgent issues for the CCRC. However, Karen Kneller’s evidence did not appear to reflect this, demonstrated by her response that recruitment is not up to the Commission. While the Ministry of Justice is ultimately responsible, it is up to the Commission to lobby, exert pressure and push for the process to be speeded up. Given the importance of commissioners to the organisation, the leadership could have been lobbying the Ministry of Justice much harder to resolve the fee issue and speed up recruitment—far more than just “regular contact” is required. (Conclusion, Paragraph 76)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges concerns about commissioner recruitment time and fee levels, explaining the complex public appointment process and expressing hope to finalise appointments quickly.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
23
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
The Ministry of Justice’s approach to commissioner recruitment, including the recruitment of an interim chair, is also concerning. 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 …
Read more
The Ministry of Justice’s approach to commissioner recruitment, including the recruitment of an interim chair, is also concerning. 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. (Conclusion, Paragraph 78)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges concerns about the lengthy commissioner recruitment and fee negotiation processes, explaining the need for multi-stage consultation, and expresses hope to finalise appointments quickly.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
26
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
Commissioners, who take the key decisions in respect of the CCRC’s work, are the backbone of the organisation. The arrangements introduced as a result of the Ministry of Justice’s Tailored Review in 2019 changed the role 47 set out for them in statute with the effect that they are now …
Read more
Commissioners, who take the key decisions in respect of the CCRC’s work, are the backbone of the organisation. The arrangements introduced as a result of the Ministry of Justice’s Tailored Review in 2019 changed the role 47 set out for them in statute with the effect that they are now no longer fully involved in, and able to input into, the making of key decisions about the organisation. (Conclusion, Paragraph 83)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government refers to the 2019 Tailored Review and states that the interim Chair's review will evaluate the effectiveness of the CCRC's governance and the structural relationship between commissioners and the organisation, implicitly acknowledging the committee's concern about commissioner involvement in decision-making.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
34
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
The regular physical presence of senior leaders in the office conveys, to staff and stakeholders, that the leadership is present, operational and effective. (Conclusion, Paragraph 96)
Government response AI summary
The government agrees that senior leadership presence conveys important messages to staff. However, it clarifies that CCRC staff are public servants, not Civil Servants, and the CCRC Chair and Chief Executive are ultimately responsible for defining the best staff working model.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
40
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
The released extracts from the panel report on the former Chair made clear that one of her main failings was the absence of any evidence that the Chief Executive’s performance was subject to sufficient challenge. It is likely that the interim chair will have to bring about significant changes to …
Read more
The released extracts from the panel report on the former Chair made clear that one of her main failings was the absence of any evidence that the Chief Executive’s performance was subject to sufficient challenge. It is likely that the interim chair will have to bring about significant changes to the working practices of the CCRC. These changes are likely to involve undoing practices brought in by the current Chief Executive. (Conclusion, Paragraph 103)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the concerns regarding the former Chief Executive's performance and confirms her resignation, stating this offers an opportunity to refresh leadership and restore confidence. It notes that the interim Chair's review will evaluate the senior leadership team for further support or strengthening.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
41
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Acknowledged
The information provided to us by Chris Webb and Chris Henley KC has raised significant doubts regarding the evidence given by Karen Kneller on 29 April. Subsequently, in response to that information, Karen Kneller has provided some clarifications of her statements. We are not persuaded by these clarifications. It is …
Read more
The information provided to us by Chris Webb and Chris Henley KC has raised significant doubts regarding the evidence given by Karen Kneller on 29 April. Subsequently, in response to that information, Karen Kneller has provided some clarifications of her statements. We are not persuaded by these clarifications. It is regrettable that her original answers were not satisfactory and required further clarification. (Conclusion, Paragraph 104)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the committee's concerns about the former Chief Executive's evidence and performance, noting her resignation and the opportunity to refresh leadership. It highlights that the interim Chair's review will evaluate the senior leadership team.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice