Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee
Recommendation 7
7
Acknowledged
Karen Kneller's denial of CCRC attempts to water down the Henley report was misleading.
Conclusion
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)
Government Response 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.
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
Your report refers to concerns regarding the performance of and evidence given to the Committee by the CCRC’s then Chief Executive, Karen Kneller. The report concluded that it was not tenable for her to continue in her position. Ms Kneller resigned from her role on 2 July 2025. This marks an opportunity for the CCRC to refresh its leadership and for confidence to be restored to the organisation. The Ministry of Justice will, as we do with all our public bodies, work constructively with and provide appropriate support to the interim Chief Executive, and the next permanent Chief Executive when appointed. The Terms of Reference for the interim Chair’s review include: Capability: An evaluation of the senior leadership team should also be conducted to identify areas where further support or strengthening is needed, in order restore public confidence. Furthermore, we agree that the handling of these matters has damaged the reputation of the CCRC in the eyes of the public. One of the reasons the Lord Chancellor referred the previous Chair to the independent panel was that the Chair’s statements about Mr Malkinson’s case and the handling of the Henley report demonstrated a failure to inspire confidence in the role of the CCRC. The panel agreed that these actions amounted to failure to meet the terms of the appointment for the role of Chair. This led to the subsequent resignation of the Chair in January 2025.