Karen Kneller, Chief Executive of the CCRC
Helen Pitcher has resigned as Chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), seemingly anticipating that King Charles would sack her anyway over her unacceptable behaviour. Karen Kneller, Chief Executive of the CCRC remains in post. Is that reasonable or desirable? We argue here that Pitcher’s resignation, while long overdue, is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to accountability for the CCRC’s repeated failures and that a change of Chief Executive and organisational ethos is required.
It is notable that the original management of the CCRC had frequent disagreements with the Court of Appeal over the nature of cases referred by the CCRC, while the more recent management and Chairman have made no significant comments about the function of the CoA whatsoever in relation to the limitations placed upon the CCRC by the ‘real possibility test’ and the requirement for ‘fresh’ evidence.(1)
The broader issue is the management focus of the CCRC Board and the accusation, not without evidence, that the primary measure of success within the CCRC is the meeting of various Key Performance Indicators (KPI), more of which below. It is as if the CCRC has forgotten its main purpose and instead finds comfort in meeting corporate statistical targets.
Helen Pitcher KC OBE was seemingly the ‘perfect’ dilettante appointment when the UK Government handed her the role in 2018. However, she came to the organisation with a portfolio of other ‘jobs’. The time commitments in fulfilling these numerous lucrative part-time roles clearly did not impact unduly on the selection panel handing her the role of Chairman of the CCRC; it was evidently seen by Government as a figurehead appointment, not a role requiring serious commitment. Yet, as Pitcher stated in her resignation letter, she was joining an organisation that had “failings in the organisation” with advice from the then Commissioners to “remove the senior management team”. Pitcher says that it was not feasible to do so but does not enlighten us as to why.
Pitchers’ self-pitying resignation letter also draws attention to whether she “sufficiently drew attention to the performance of the CEO”. She did not, and it is a major failing of Pitcher that she did not sack Kneller when it became apparent how lackadaisical Kneller had been in staff oversight in relation to the case of Andrew Malkinson (and in numerous other cases). Kneller has been an integral part of the CCRC’s senior management for many years, appointed Acting Chief Executive in 2012, and, like Pitcher, has dabbled in numerous other remunerated part-time jobs while in full-time employment with the CCRC. (2)
It was Kneller who was in a senior position of oversight when Andrew Malkinson’s first submission to the CCRC was wrongly refused, as outlined by Chris Henley KC. Henley’s report, without naming Kneller explicitly, is a damning indictment of her leadership of the CCRC. Let us not forget that Kneller also had knowledge of the CCRC’s failings in the wrongful conviction of Victor Nealon, a case near-identical to that of Malkinson, so Kneller had no excuses when the Malkinson submission was being assessed. (3)
Karen Kneller was director of casework when, according to Chris Henley KC, the CCRC did “very poor” work on Malkinson’s first application to overturn his conviction for a 2003 stranger rape he did not commit. A source at the CCRC said: “She was director of casework at the time that the first decision took place, which is where it all went badly wrong, and it just spiralled from there.” (4)
Kneller was promoted to chief executive in 2012, shortly after Malkinson’s application was rejected for the first time. A month before Malkinson’s exoneration in 2023, Kneller was given a 7.5% pay rise to about £120,000, including a bonus of up to £10,000, according to CCRC data. Obviously, meeting KPI targets is deemed more important by the CCRC Board than is processing submissions effectively. Kneller is actually more culpable than Pitcher in the demise of the CCRC as she has been around long enough to have implemented meaningful changes to practice.
"Obviously, meeting KPI targets is deemed more important by the CCRC Board than is processing submissions effectively."
Twelve years of decline under Kneller’s management
The CCRC does not have a huge number of staff employed full-time to oversee submissions; there is Amanda Pearce who is Casework Operations Director and Kneller. Therefore, they have no excuse when it comes to the issue of monitoring the processing of submissions. Yet, some submissions drag on for years without resolution before finally, and inevitably, being rejected. There can be no justification for Pearce not being held accountable by Kneller over the time taken to process a submission; even the most complex submission could be dealt with in six months of focussed analysis rather than the plodding desktop exercises undertaken at present by Case Review Managers who engage in seeking obscure legalistic arguments for rejecting a submission.
The extraordinary lengths of time taken to reject submissions seems to have become an accepted norm within the CCRC. There must surely be a methodology that could identify issues that prevent a referral to the Court of Appeal (CoA) faster than the current practices, but it appears that Kneller has not sought a solution.(5) As long as she can report a satisfactory KPI in the Annual Reports, she is happy. Thus, despite a considerable number of cases that have been languishing within the CCRC for many years, Kneller can report that 85% are completed within 12 months, as if that was a ‘good’ performance. Furthermore, Kneller’s twelve years of management has instilled a culture whereby the CCRC staff regard all applicants as guilty (see here). The CCRC justifies this outlook based upon the legalistic notion that every applicant has been found guilty in a court of law, ignoring the detail that a minority are in fact really not guilty.
Perhaps the biggest failure of Kneller in her 12 years as CEO is that she has failed to raise any objection to the ‘real possibility test’ (see here for Dr. Michael Naughton’s recent comments on this). On several occasions she has been asked to attend meetings of the Criminal Justice Committee at Parliament, but she has never asked for changes to the status quo, always keen to give the impression that the CCRC is doing the best that can be expected. Her preoccupation seems to be to not ‘rock the boat’, quite content that the CCRC’s referral rate should hover around the 3% level, meaning that 97% of applicants are denied an opportunity to challenge their conviction.
Kneller has also presided over a CCRC that hires senior ex-police officers to oversee submissions by people who have allegedly been wronged by the very same police forces that employed them! For example, the case of Jeremy Bamber, which has in effect been vetted by retired Essex Police officers for 30 years. Kneller has done nothing to end this practice. The CCRC justify the employment of ex-police officers by saying that they bring valuable investigative experience, but as the CCRC never undertakes any investigation this is clearly a smoke screen to cover up ongoing police vetting of high profile cases.
As Dr. Naughton says in his article, a new Chairman and Chief Executive/Senior management at the CCRC has no chance of making a real impact unless there are changes to the legislation governing the ‘real possibility test’. However, there are changes that could be made to the way in which the organisation processes applications so as to ensure that they are processed more swiftly than at present. One thing that would help enormously would be to work in partnership with applicants wherever possible.
For example, in April 2023 in relation to the case of Jeremy Bamber, I wrote to Kneller giving her copies of documentation relating to the timing of telephone calls clearly forged by Essex Police and offered to work with CCRC staff (at no cost to the CCRC) to identify the original documents and use them to form a submission. Her response was to reject my offer of assistance, saying that the CCRC has its own experienced investigators. These are presumably the same investigators that have ignored this crucial evidence for the past 25 years!
My interpretation of her rebuff is simply that she does not wish to find evidence of Essex Police forging documentation. Perhaps this is why the CCRC have failed to interview former Essex PC Nicholas Milbank, who has stated that he never made a witness statement that nevertheless bears his name and signature (see here).
The CCRC is contemptuous of anyone outside their organisation offering them help and makes no effort to engage with applicants. This needs to change; perhaps the new Chairman could at least instigate a more welcoming organisation?
By Bill Robertson
Bill Robertson has researched alleged miscarriages of justice for around 20 years and advised on several cases, including the most recent application to the CCRC by Jeremy Bamber.
Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.
References
The root of the problem is s.13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It deprives the CCRC of its claimed independence in its requirement that the CCRC can only refer cases back to the appeal courts if it is felt that the conviction has a ‘real possibility’ of not being upheld. This statutory requirement impacts on how the CCRC review applications, too, as it directs caseworkers (or Case Review Managers (CRMs) as they are officially called) to look at the criteria of the appeal courts to determine whether the case may qualify for referral. As this relates to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), CRMs must consider such legislation as s.28 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, which requires that evidence admissible in the Court of Appeal must be ‘fresh’, understood generally as evidence or argument that was not or could not have been available at the time of the original trial.
From the Shelter website – “Karen Kneller is a lawyer and has worked for over 30 years in the public sector, with extensive experience across government, policy and legislation. Karen has held a number of roles, both executive and non-executive, including Policy Adviser, Director and Chief Executive. In addition, Karen brings a wealth of experience in audit, risk and governance. Karen also has a strong background in the third sector, particularly with respect to equality and diversity”. (Date appointed: 1 July 2022). Kneller was also a paid member of the following while employed by the CCRC: - General Dental Council, Social Entitlement Tribunal, Heart of England Foundation Trust, UHB NHS Foundation Trust, Black Country Housing Group.
Just as with the Malkinson case, after Nealon was exonerated the CCRC said that they should have investigated the case more thoroughly. Commission chairman Richard Foster said, “I regret the fact in this particular case we missed something, and I apologise to all concerned for the fact we did so.” Kneller was an employee of the CCRC at the time.
The Guardian newspaper 19 July 2024.
It doesn’t help at all that a Case review Manager can receive a submission and then not read it for six or nine months, as has happened in the 2021 submission made by Jeremy Bamber’s representatives. The Case Review Manager was not subject to any disciplinary measures over his failings.
Comments