Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal Cases Review Commission
Justice Committee
HC 749
Published 23 May 2025
Recommendations
1
Accepted
Share independent panel report into former CCRC Chair with Board and commissioners.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Ministry of Justice shares the independent panel report into the former CCRC Chair with the CCRC’s Board and the commissioners. (Recommendation, Paragraph 3) The CCRC’s approach to Andrew Malkinson’s acquittal and the Henley report
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government accepts the recommendation, stating they have informed the independent panel members that the report will be shared with the CCRC’s Board and Commissioners.
Ministry of Justice
View Details →
10
Deferred
Explaining CCRC referral decisions would increase transparency and rebuild public trust.
Recommendation
There is merit in Amanda Pearce’s suggestion that the CCRC should be able to explain its decisions on whether to refer cases to the appeal courts. This would allow for greater transparency which would aid proper scrutiny of the Commission’s …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government has deferred action on the CCRC explaining its decisions by referring the matter to an interim Chair's review, which will consider the issue of prohibition of disclosure and make recommendations if it finds it hampers effectiveness.
Ministry of Justice
View Details →
17
Accepted
Require pre-appointment scrutiny for the next permanent CCRC Chair due to recent failings.
Recommendation
We reiterate the importance of our request for pre-appointment scrutiny of the next permanent chair. We believe this is vital given the recent failings of the CCRC and the shortcomings of the previous chair. (Conclusion, Paragraph 54)
Government Response Summary
The government confirms that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has agreed to add the CCRC Chair to the list of roles subject to pre-appointment scrutiny.
Ministry of Justice
View Details →
25
Deferred
Review commissioner terms of appointment to enable greater contribution to CCRC operations.
Recommendation
We recommend 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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 80)
Government Response Summary
The government states that the interim Chair's review will evaluate governance effectiveness and fully review the commissioners' contribution to the CCRC's running. It commits to considering any recommended changes to terms and conditions that emerge from this review.
Ministry of Justice
View Details →
30
Deferred
Consider Commission-Ministry of Justice dynamic to foster robust leadership in departmental dealings.
Recommendation
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. …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government states the relationship with CCRC is based on Cabinet Office good practice and is constructive. It welcomes any findings from the interim Chair's review regarding potential improvements in how the department interacts with the CCRC.
Ministry of Justice
View Details →
35
Deferred
Mandate CCRC senior leadership to establish a regular office presence and hybrid model.
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government states the CCRC is responsible for determining its staff's terms and conditions and working locations. While agreeing on the importance of senior leadership presence, it clarifies CCRC staff are public servants, not Civil Servants, and the working model is ultimately for the CCRC Chair and Chief Executive to define.
Ministry of Justice
View Details →
39
Accepted
Require interim chair's review to propose improvements for commissioner-leadership team relationship.
Recommendation
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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 102)
Government Response Summary
The Ministry of Justice confirms that the interim Chair's review's terms of reference explicitly include evaluating the structural relationship between the Commissioners, Body Corporate, Board, and Executive, directly addressing the committee's recommendation.
Ministry of Justice
View Details →
Conclusions (35)
2
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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 investigate miscarriages of justice.
3
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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.
4
Conclusion
Rejected
The Committee does not understand why the CCRC would consider itself bound by the government’s General Election guidance. Even if it did consider the guidance applicable, we do not understand why applying that guidance would lead to the conclusion that the report should not be published, given that this was …
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's view, asserting that the CCRC, as an NDPB, was bound by the General Election guidance. The Ministry of Justice, with agreement from the Cabinet Office, concluded that publishing the Henley report during the pre-election period would have been contrary to the guidance's principles.
5
Conclusion
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. …
Government Response 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.
6
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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 possibility’ test, and quality control of casework, directly addressing concerns about broader lessons from cases.
7
Conclusion
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 …
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.
8
Conclusion
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 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.
9
Conclusion
Accepted
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 …
Government Response Summary
The government agrees the handling of the report damaged the CCRC's reputation and confirms the Lord Chancellor has tasked the interim Chair with a review. This review includes assessing the CCRC's effectiveness in delivering its statutory responsibilities, including its understanding of the 'real possibility' test and quality control of casework.
11
Conclusion
Accepted
The forthcoming review of the organisation should consider the impact on the Commission of the prohibition on disclosure set out in section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. (Recommendation, Paragraph 46) 45
Government Response Summary
The Ministry of Justice has asked the interim Chair to specifically consider the impact of the prohibition on disclosure (section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995) and to include recommendations if it is found to hamper the CCRC's effectiveness.
12
Conclusion
Accepted
We support the conclusions of the Westminster Commission and some of the comments made by Karen Kneller regarding the interim chair. The chair should be someone who is not afraid to be honest about the flaws of the CCRC and the changes that need to be made. (Conclusion, Paragraph 47)
Government Response Summary
The government agrees the Chair should be dedicated to identifying miscarriages of justice and upholding independence, stating these qualities will be tested during the recruitment of the next permanent Chair. They will consider a blend of skills and the interim Chair's views, ensuring the candidate can inspire confidence and engage stakeholders.
13
Conclusion
Accepted in Part
The Chair should have a background in criminal justice, have recognised experience in that field and, above all, be absolutely dedicated to the CCRC’s purpose of identifying miscarriages of justice and upholding its independence. (Recommendation, Paragraph 48)
Government Response Summary
The government agrees the Chair should be dedicated to the CCRC's purpose and independence, and will test these attributes during recruitment. While acknowledging previous person specifications made criminal justice experience desirable, they will seek a suitably qualified candidate with a blend of skills and will consider the interim Chair's views on essential qualities.
14
Conclusion
Accepted
The former Chair held multiple executive roles which gave the perception of a lack of focus and may have contributed to the CCRC’s failings. (Conclusion, Paragraph 49)
Government Response Summary
The Ministry of Justice agrees the Chair should be fully dedicated to the CCRC's mission and will ensure this commitment is tested during the recruitment process for the next permanent Chair. They will decide on the required time commitment and consult the Committee, also considering the interim Chair's reflections on appointment terms.
15
Conclusion
Accepted
The next permanent chair or interim chair of the CCRC should be dedicated to the organisation above all other duties. (Recommendation, Paragraph 50)
Government Response Summary
The Ministry of Justice agrees the Chair should be fully dedicated to the CCRC's mission and will ensure this commitment is tested during the recruitment process for the next permanent Chair. They will define the required time commitment, consult the Committee, and consider the interim Chair's reflections on appointment terms.
16
Conclusion
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 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.
18
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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.
19
Conclusion
Deferred
The 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. Despite recent budget increases, its current expenditure remains 15 per cent lower than it was in 2005 …
Government Response Summary
The government states an interim Chair's review will evaluate the CCRC's funding and value for money within its existing budget. It notes past budget increases but expects the CCRC to maximise current resources before further requests are considered.
20
Conclusion
Accepted in Part
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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 71)
Government Response Summary
The government states the interim Chair's review will evaluate the CCRC's value for money within its existing funding envelope, focusing on maximising current resources, and future resource requests will be considered.
21
Conclusion
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, …
Government Response 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.
22
Conclusion
Not Addressed
Karen Kneller told us that the “validity of the work of the CCRC or any decision taken is not impacted by commissioner numbers”. We question this assertion. Operating without a full quota of commissioners, in other words ‘short-staffed’, must place pressure on those in position, thereby increasing organisational risk. This …
Government Response Summary
The government's response acknowledges general concerns about commissioner recruitment and fees, but does not directly address the committee's specific questioning of the CCRC CEO's assertion or the critique of leadership's seriousness regarding organisational risk due to short-staffing.
23
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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.
24
Conclusion
Deferred
We are concerned that the current terms of appointment for commissioners are not sufficiently attractive to recruit and retain the best possible candidates. Further, a minimum time commitment of 52 days per annum does not seem sufficient. (Conclusion, Paragraph 79)
Government Response Summary
The government notes a recent pay increase but defers the substantive review of commissioner terms of appointment and time commitment to the interim Chair's review, with any recommendations to be considered by Ministers.
26
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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.
27
Conclusion
Accepted
The interim chair’s review should consider the impact of this change, with a view to substantially increasing the number of commissioners on the CCRC Board. The review should also consider whether the current corporate structure of the organisation and its lines of decision-making are appropriate. (Recommendation, Paragraph 84)
Government Response Summary
The government confirms the interim Chair's review will evaluate the effectiveness of the CCRC's governance, structure, and operational efficiency, including the structural relationship between Commissioners and the Board, directly aligning with the recommendation's call for review.
28
Conclusion
Rejected
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. This is demonstrated by the …
Government Response Summary
The government explains and defends the delay in publishing the Henley report, stating it adhered to pre-election guidance for NDPBs. It asserts that its relationship with the CCRC is based on the Cabinet Office's Arm's Length Body Sponsorship Code of Good Practice, effectively refuting the committee's concern about independence.
29
Conclusion
Deferred
It appears to us that the senior leaders have not been doing enough to challenge the Ministry of Justice and ensure that it has the resources it needs to carry out its functions. We are unclear whether this is due to a lack of robust lobbying on the part of …
Government Response Summary
The government states the interim Chair's review will rigorously evaluate CCRC funding and value for money, focusing on maximising current resources. It notes the MoJ has increased CCRC's budget year-on-year and expects CCRC to utilise funding cost-effectively.
31
Conclusion
Deferred
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. We struggle to understand how investigative case work, with its complexities and potential for distress, is suitable to be undertaken fully from home, …
Government Response Summary
The government states the CCRC is responsible for determining its staff's terms and conditions and working locations as the employer. While agreeing on the importance of senior leadership presence, it clarifies CCRC staff are public servants, not civil servants, and the working model is ultimately for the CCRC Chair and Chief Executive to define.
32
Conclusion
Deferred
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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 94)
Government Response Summary
The government states the CCRC is responsible for determining its staff's terms and conditions and working locations. While agreeing on the importance of senior leadership presence, it clarifies CCRC staff are public servants, not civil servants, and the working model is ultimately for the CCRC Chair and Chief Executive to define.
33
Conclusion
Deferred
We were told that recruitment played a role in the decision to become fully remote. However, we hope that other options were thoroughly explored first and staff were consulted before this drastic step was taken. Moving to a hybrid model of working in January 2022 may have been sufficient to …
Government Response Summary
The government states the CCRC is responsible for determining its staff's terms and conditions and working locations. It asserts that the CCRC Chair and Chief Executive ultimately define the best staff working model, with MoJ support.
34
Conclusion
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 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.
36
Conclusion
Deferred
We conclude that, a decade on from our predecessor Committee’s inquiry into the CCRC, there is evidence that the situation for the CCRC has deteriorated significantly. At the time of writing, the CCRC lacks a chair and has struggled to secure a sufficient number of commissioners, which are central to …
Government Response Summary
The government agrees the CCRC is important and faces significant challenges in rebuilding public trust. It states the new interim Chair's review will cover the Committee's concerns and looks forward to its findings and recommendations.
37
Conclusion
Deferred
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 …
Government Response Summary
The government agrees the CCRC is a hugely important organisation facing challenges in rebuilding public trust. It highlights that the interim Chair's review has a primary objective to restore public confidence and will undertake an urgent and comprehensive review of the CCRC's governance, leadership, and operational effectiveness.
38
Conclusion
Deferred
We are concerned that the current structure of the CCRC does not appear to be functioning as it should. The Criminal Appeal Act 1995 created the CCRC as a body corporate, with the commissioners as members of the Commission, vested with the statutory functions to investigate and refer miscarriages of …
Government Response Summary
The government agrees the CCRC is important and faces challenges in rebuilding public trust. It outlines that the interim Chair's review will undertake an urgent and comprehensive evaluation of the CCRC's governance and leadership to restore public confidence.
40
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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.
41
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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.
42
Conclusion
Accepted
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 …
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the committee's concerns and confirms that the former Chief Executive, Karen Kneller, resigned from her role on 2 July 2025, which provides an opportunity to refresh leadership and restore confidence.