Oral evidence: Work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, HC 749

Oral evidence, 29 April 2025.

Witnesses

Karen Kneller and Amanda Pearce.

Chair

Welcome to this afternoon’s session of the Justice Committee, in which we will look at the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We have the chief executive and the casework operations director to give evidence. I am going to ask them to introduce themselves and their work in a moment, but first I will ask the members of the Committee if they have any declarations of interest to make—starting with Sarah Russell.

Mrs Russell

My declarations are on the register, but in general it would probably be helpful for you to know that I am a solicitor, specialising in employment law, although I am not currently practising; and I am a member of various trade unions.

Pam Cox

I am Pam Cox, and my interests are as declared on the register.

Mike Tapp

Hello. Mike Tapp: declared on the register—and I worked for the National Crime Agency in the past.

Chair

Andy Slaughter: I am the Chair of the Committee. I am a non-practising barrister, a member of the GMB and Unite trade unions and a patron of two law-related charities: Hammersmith & Fulham law centre and the Upper Room.

Tessa Munt

Tessa Munt. Everything is on the register, but I draw your attention to the fact that I am a director of WhistleblowersUK, which is a non-profit-making organisation.

Warinder Juss

Warinder Juss: my interests are on the register. I am an executive council member of the GMB trade union and a member of various APPGs. I am a solicitor, but not practising at the moment.

Sir Ashley Fox

Good afternoon. Ashley Fox—and my interests are on the register.

Chair

Thank you very much, everyone. Welcome, again. Perhaps, because I know you both have a long history with the CCRC, you could introduce yourselves, starting with Ms Kneller, set out your current roles, and say when you joined the commission and what roles you have played in the organisation.

Karen Kneller

Certainly. I am Karen Kneller, the chief executive of the commission. I joined the commission in 2005 as the director of casework and in 2013 I took up the role of chief executive. My responsibility as chief exec is the day-to-day running and management of the organisation.

Chair

You are based in Birmingham, and you work from Birmingham.

Karen Kneller

No, the office is based in Birmingham. I work remotely, but I live in the west midlands.

Chair

Out of interest, what does that mean, in terms of how many days a week you would be in the office?

Karen Kneller

I am probably in the office maybe one or two days every couple of months or so.

Chair

One or two days, every couple of months.

Karen Kneller

Yes. We are not an office-based organisation any more.

Chair

Ms Pearce.

Amanda Pearce

I am Amanda Pearce. I am a solicitor. I am the casework operations director for CCRC. I joined on 1 April 1997, when we started work. I joined in an administrative capacity. I moved into the role of case review manager in around 1999. I was then a group leader, from 2012—so responsible for managing one of our casework teams—and I have been in the director role since early 2021, in which role I am responsible for our six casework teams, our legal and investigations team, and our forensic opportunities programme.

Chair

I will ask you the same question: are you Birmingham-based? How much time do you spend in the office?

Amanda Pearce

I work from home as part of our remote working arrangements. Similarly to Karen, I would be in the office maybe one or two days every couple of months.

Chair

We will come on to this in more detail later, but was there a point when the organisation changed from being office-based to a remote working organisation? When was that, and why?

Karen Kneller

Probably like many in the country, primarily the move started during covid, through the lockdowns. We found that before we went into lockdown we were struggling to appoint case review managers. We had effectively exhausted the local pool of candidates. We look for a quite specialist skillset in case review managers. We found that by recruiting nationally we were able to fill vacancies that we would not have been able to fill. That was the driver for effectively becoming a home-based organisation once we were through lockdown. We have a small team in the office every day. There is a reception, and IT are based there, but most staff work remotely and will go in on a few days, when there is a need—when something requires them to be on site. We work remotely now. Because of that, we have been able to ensure that we could fill vacancies that we simply would not have been able to fill before.

Chair

Almost every organisation in the country had to go to home working, in part or fully, during covid, but most of them have now returned to working, most of the week, at least, on an office basis. You are in Birmingham, which is central and is the second city of the country.

Karen Kneller

Yes.

Chair

It is in the middle of the country. Are you saying that this was forced on you because you simply could not recruit, after several attempts, or that you made a policy change to switch to a different way of working?

Karen Kneller

I would not say it was forced on us. It was our decision, but we faced the situation of having had possibly four or five recruitment rounds and we could no longer match the salaries of some of the businesses in the Birmingham area—I suppose, the second city. We were struggling to fill casework slots, and that was a real concern. Since we have moved to remote working, we have been able to fill those vacancies with some exceptional people.

Amanda Pearce

We have also been able to better reflect our geographical jurisdiction, as well. For the first time we have case review managers based in Northern Ireland, to reflect the Northern Irish jurisdiction. We have people across the country, which makes our work more efficient, in some circumstances—in terms of work outside the office.

Chair

You have both been at the commission for a very long time—in your case, since it began—so you are in a good position to tell us whether you think it has changed materially, and whether for better or worse, over that period. We have just discussed one area where it has changed. What do you see as the role of the commission, and how has it changed over the 20 or 25 years in which you have both been involved in it?

Karen Kneller

In terms of the commission’s role, I do not see that that has changed. We are about finding, investigating and referring miscarriages of justice. What has changed is that, as you have heard, we have moved to remote ways of working—so that is a change—and as a result we have seen our performance shored up and improved. Our referrals have risen. The main change has been around how we engage people, but the doing of the work has not changed, other than that—to pick up on Amanda’s point—the geographical spread of people has meant we could tap into local knowledge, which we perhaps could not before. For example, our jurisdiction includes Northern Ireland, but it is only in the last couple of years or so that we have had people in Northern Ireland. That was long overdue.

Amanda Pearce

That is right. Processes may have developed over the years. What has not changed is that commitment to finding and referring miscarriages of justice. That dedication that was there when we started is still there today.

Chair

I hear what you say, but you must have read a lot of commentary about the organisation in the last few months, and the general perceived wisdom is that the organisation is a shadow of its former self. We will go on to explore some of the areas where we think that has occurred, but it would be strange if none of that had touched you, the people who run the organisation. Can I ask the question again: how have the way the organisation works, and its performance and success, changed over the years when you have been involved?

Karen Kneller

I would invite the Committee and anyone tuning in today to consider the commission’s performance not only through the small number of cases that get into the headlines, but across the whole sphere of the work that we do. That is really important. I do not see that there is a tension between a change in the way that we are based and how we are performing. In fact, as to our performance over the last few years, intake has risen significantly; we are closing more cases; we are referring more cases; but there is the challenge that the majority of our casework is not seen and does not hit the headlines. Our performance is assessed and judged only, really, by what we see in the press.

Chair

Well, we are all judged by our failures rather than our successes, I suspect. Can I bring in Tessa Munt?

Tessa Munt

Thank you. May I just pick you up on your statements about being more successful in referrals? I think I have the facts here, saying that in 2024 CCRC received 1,629 applications and 25 were referred to the Court of Appeal, which is fewer than 2%. In reality, I suspect, to most of us, the only thing that matters is referrals to the Court of Appeal. There is no other way that a wrongful conviction can be overturned. You say you are closing more cases. Well, that is great. I suspect we could all close cases. I would love to be able to do that in my job, but I cannot; I have to pursue them through to the end. Probably the general view might be that closing cases and putting them in the archive is not the same as actually being very rigorous. I will leave it there, but 25 going to the Court of Appeal—fewer than 2%—is not a huge number, is it? So you are saying you are very confident that in 1,604 applications it was absolutely fit and fine for those people to be held in custody.

Karen Kneller

I think I was saying that, because we have improved our ways of working, we have got better at how we investigate and review cases. Certainly from our data, in the last business year the number of our referrals increased by nearly a quarter on the year before.

Tessa Munt

From what to what? Forgive me—

Karen Kneller

I know those numbers are quite small, but we are now looking at, I think, about 870 referrals since we have been in existence. That is hundreds and hundreds.

Tessa Munt

Since when?

Karen Kneller

Since we have been in existence. That is hundreds and hundreds of referrals.

Tessa Munt

You are saying that there have been eight hundred and—

Amanda Pearce

Eight hundred and seventy three.

Tessa Munt

Eight hundred and seventy three referrals to the Court of Appeal since exactly when?

Karen Kneller

Since 1997, when we came into operation.

Tessa Munt

Thank you.

Chair

Warinder, did you want to come in?

Warinder Juss

Yes, I just want to seek clarification of the link between recruitment and remote working. Are you saying that you had difficulty recruiting because people did not want to come into the office?

Karen Kneller

No, we had difficulty recruiting because the package we were offering was not good enough when compared with other packages in the area.

Amanda Pearce

And because we were confined to the geographical area around Birmingham—the commuting distance. Now that we work remotely we have people based across the UK—in the north-east and the south-west. It has opened up the pool that we can draw from, and we are looking for the people with the right skills and attributes to fill those difficult and challenging roles.

Warinder Juss

So remote working has increased the pool from which you can select.

Amanda Pearce

Yes.

Warinder Juss

Thank you.

Chair

The chair, as we know, left the organisation on 14 January. You have not had a chair since then. Do you know when you are going to get at least an interim chair?

Karen Kneller

No. I understand that MOJ is approaching the end of what has been quite a long process, but no, I do not know. We are not involved in that process.

Chair

And that chair, we know, will not just, presumably, supervise the organisation—supervise both of you—but will also undertake a review. Do you know what that review is likely to involve?

Karen Kneller

No.

Chair

When the last chair resigned, she commented in her resignation letter that some departing commissioners had advised her to remove the senior management team; but she did not—because you are still here. What did you think when you read that? Do you think you are the right people to lead the organisation?

Karen Kneller

I do think we are the right people to lead the organisation. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on something that was reproduced in the press.

Chair

It is from the letter of the resigning chair.

Karen Kneller

Yes. I think it was unfortunate perhaps the way the resignation was approached, but, in any event, we are leading an organisation that has been handling 30,000 or so cases. We have sustained and, I would say, improved performance. It felt a very strange thing to say in a resignation letter and it was perhaps disappointing and, I think, upsetting to some members of staff that there was in that letter no reflection of, or thanks to, case review staff who had, essentially, been busting a gut on cases.

Chair

Since the chairman departed, what changes have you made to case management processes and personnel?

Karen Kneller

Since the ex-chair stepped down, what changes have been made to casework processes? I am not sure, other than the forensic opportunities programme—that is probably the big one.

Amanda Pearce

Yes. We have been in the process of implementing the recommendations that Mr Henley made in his review. That has been an ongoing piece of work. For example, there is the forensic opportunities programme, which Karen mentioned, which I can go into in more detail, if you would like. We have also looked at our approach to obtaining police material, and have made some changes around that. We have revised and updated some of our guidance in relation to working with and communicating with applicants. We have also delivered some additional training that Mr Henley recommended.

Chair

Who is actually running the organisation now? My understanding is that it is a body corporate. It requires a chair, who has to be a commissioner as well. Have the other commissioners stepped in to run the organisation? Are you running it?

Karen Kneller

We do not currently have a chair of the commission. One of our independent non-executive directors—the senior independent—chairs board meetings, but we are currently without a chair. The role of the chair, as you will know, is around governance, leading the board, and is very much outward-facing—the figurehead. We currently do not have that. I am responsible for the day-to-day operations, with Amanda and the others in the senior team, so that continues. While the chair has stepped down, and that has presented, certainly, a gap and some uncertainty in the organisation, I think it is really important to assure you that in terms of casework and applicants that has not been affected. We have remained very focused on casework operation.

Chair

I know you might wish that to be right, but can that be right, given that there was a long period of uncertainty before the previous chair and a lot of adverse publicity, including about the way the organisation was run? The chair went in January. You are still awaiting the appointment of a chair now. Are you seriously saying that the organisation is running as normal—or better than it was under its chair?

Karen Kneller

I think in terms of casework it absolutely is running really well. We have worked very hard to keep people focused on that day to day, that core purpose, of casework running alongside implementing the recommendations from Mr Henley’s report. Without doubt, it caused a period of upset. People were unsettled. There was a lot of uncertainty. No one knew what was going on; but staff have really committed and doubled down to focusing on getting those cases out through the door. From the beginning of the calendar year to now we have had 17 or 18—

Amanda Pearce

Eighteen.

Karen Kneller

Eighteen referrals. Even with all the noise that is going on in the background, the focus has been on doing the casework. It would be easier if that noise was not there, for sure, and it would certainly be easier if we had our interim chair in post, but that is not within my gift.

Chair

You are saying that all the publicity and interventions that have happened over the last year or so have been noise in the background; that is how you put it, is it?

Karen Kneller

No. I am saying that we have had to focus on the casework to make sure that we continue to do the day job. Obviously, the organisation was really struck by a lot of the criticism that was in the press. We have taken that on board. We have particularly taken it on board by, of course, focusing on delivering the recommendations in Mr Henley’s report.

Chair

First of all, press criticism is not necessarily irrelevant. Secondly, it is not just in the press, is it? We are going to go on to ask some questions about the Malkinson case and the Henley report. Sarah, do you want to come in on this before we move on?

Mrs Russell

I just wanted to pick up on the point you made that there had been 800 referrals to the Court of Appeal. It looks to me like you were established in 1995, so some quick maths produces 26 referrals a year. Does that seem about right?

Karen Kneller

That probably is about right. It was 1999—

Amanda Pearce

1997.

Karen Kneller

It was 1997, forgive me, when we opened our doors. I think it is probably 30 referrals a year, on average.

Mrs Russell

Your last year’s accounts show that you cost about £10 million, of which your expenditure was £9.5 million in ’23-24. It was up from £6.5 million in ’22-23. You seem to have vacated physical premises. The staffing costs were £6.4 million, so I was wondering what the other £2.8 million had gone on, and whether you feel, overall, that £10 million a year for 30 referrals a year looks like value.

Karen Kneller

On what that £2 million was spent on, I would anticipate, or venture a guess, that it was in respect of capital and the digital programme, but we can provide a breakdown of that, if it would be helpful. Most of our money is spent on the day-to-day running of the organisation, the cost of doing casework, the cost of engaging casework staff and commissioners. Is it good value for money? I am not sure that that is a question for me to answer. I would say that every referral we find is good value for money. No one has, I think, said what we should be finding—what is the right number of referrals—because, in the majority of cases that we see, we do not see anything that would lead to a successful referral, if I can use that shorthand. As far as I am aware, there has been no discussion of what would be the right number of referrals.

Mrs Russell

What do you believe would be the right number of referrals—and do you think you are meeting it?

Amanda Pearce

I do not think there is a right number of referrals. We can refer only those cases that meet the statutory test. You would be absolutely right—it would be an awful lot of money if we had looked only at the 30 cases that were referred; but, of course, to find those 30 cases we have to look at everything that comes through the door. That is 1,500 or 1,600 cases a year that we have to work on. We have to look at each of those carefully to assess whether they meet that test for referral. So, yes, as I say, if we were looking only at such a small number of cases it would not be good value for money; but we have to look at everything, and carefully.

Mrs Russell

What evaluation do you do of value for money within the organisation?

Karen Kneller

For us it is about the quality of the casework. We have quality management systems to ensure that we are producing good quality casework and are learning. Clearly, we know that we got it wrong in Mr Malkinson’s case and we are learning from that—but that is our approach. We are always looking for ways of doing things more efficiently. We are concerned that the longer a case is open that is not good for an applicant. That is how we would view and assess value for money. I think Amanda is right. What it comes back to is that most of our casework is not seen by the public. Most of it is low profile. Even the successful referrals tend not to hit the headlines. I can see how you can say, on the one hand, that it is a small number of referrals, and ask how that is good value for money with a budget of £x million, but we are talking about thousands of cases.

Chair

I will have to be a bit more disciplined: Mike first, I think.

Mike Tapp

Thank you, Chair. I just want to pick up a little more on referrals, which I was going to talk about later, but, as we are touching on that now, the Law Commission consultation on criminal appeals in February said that the current referral test is hindering the correction of miscarriages of justice and that a non-predictive test would be more appropriate. Do you agree with that? Do you think that could cause it to be too low?

Karen Kneller

When we investigate cases we are obviously investigating them within the parameters of the test we currently have. We have for some time put our hands up to say we would welcome a review of the test.

Amanda Pearce

I do not think we have—well, I know we do not have—a pile of cases where we say, “If only it was a different test we would be able to refer these.” We work to the test that exists. It is obviously a test of Parliament’s making, not ours, but we are open to the review of that test, and suggestions of other tests that might be applied.

Mike Tapp

Just to get this right: who makes the decision on the test that is applied? Is that Parliament?

Amanda Pearce

Yes. It is set in statute. It is in the Criminal Appeal Act.

Mike Tapp

Thank you.

Warinder Juss

Just quickly, I understand the point that most of the cases that you see would not be referred but you would still have to assess those cases. Out of the 30 referrals on average that you do refer to the Court of Appeal how many cases are you assessing on average every year? You did mention a figure of 30,000 earlier on. Are you saying you assess up to 30,000 a year?

Karen Kneller

No. It is about 1,500 or 1,600 a year that come to us.

Amanda Pearce

Last year we completed 1,482 cases that we looked at and made a decision on.

Chair

Just a quick question: you say you are focused on quality, but we had a look at your key performance indicators, and five of those are about timeliness. Only two are about quality. Is that significant?

Amanda Pearce

That is partly because quality is quite difficult to measure in numbers, to turn it into a key performance indicator. Timeliness is relatively easy to measure in numbers, and it is important to applicants, as well. You could not really say you had conducted a quality review if it had taken longer than it should; so timeliness is important to applicants. We have the other quality indicators there, which look at whether we have had to reopen cases as a result of errors; but there is then a separate quality management system, which involves scrutiny of cases by group leaders. Nothing is ever decided that has not been looked at by at least two people—often many more. We have also got our long-running cases committee, which looks at cases that have been under review for longer. There are other mechanisms for assuring the quality of the work that we do.

Pam Cox

Exactly on that point, how do you then define and measure quality?

Amanda Pearce

Quality is about making sure that we conduct a thorough review in a reasonable timeframe but we are aiming to reach the right outcome, so one of the measures that we use there is cases that we have had to reopen. It is a very small number, but it may be as a result of a judicial review, a complaint or post-closure correspondence. We will always look again at a case if we think something has gone wrong there, but generally speaking our quality is around ensuring that we do everything we need to do in a reasonable time, and reach a reasonable, reasoned decision.

Pam Cox

What proportion of the staff are legally trained?

Amanda Pearce

We have 40 case review managers. About half of them are lawyers. The others will come from a variety of different backgrounds. They may be former investigators, or former police officers, or they may come from slightly broader backgrounds. The proportion of our commissioners who are legally qualified would be—

Karen Kneller

It is quite high. Two thirds?

Amanda Pearce

At least two thirds, and possibly higher.

Pam Cox

Do you both have backgrounds as lawyers?

Karen Kneller

I am a barrister. I should have said that in the intro.

Amanda Pearce

I am a solicitor.

Karen Kneller

They also have access to our in-house legal team as well, if they want it.

Chair

We need to move on. Tessa.

Tessa Munt

Yes, I just want to pick up on what you said. I will invite you to write to the Chair. I would be quite interested in knowing how many of the cases that you have referred are matters of process as opposed to matters of fact and evidence. For example, I am aware of what I know are a historic couple of cases—McDaid and, I think, Clarke—which were purely about somebody not having signed a piece of paper somewhere. You can claim that as a win, even though in fact everybody I think broadly decided that the people concerned were guilty—of GBH, if I remember rightly. I just wondered if you might inform the Chair of those process matters, as opposed to evidence and fact.

Amanda Pearce

I think there are very few as technical as Clarke and McDaid. There are other cases where you might describe it as process, but process can encompass a lot of things. It could encompass non-disclosure; it could encompass abuse of process. It is important to remember that where a referral may be about the process, it is not necessarily just a technicality. It is about ensuring the integrity of the system—the things that protect everybody and not just that individual in that case.

Tessa Munt

Thank you.

Karen Kneller

We can certainly write. We have got a case library up on our website which goes back through our referrals—

Tessa Munt

Can you say that again? I could not hear it.

Karen Kneller

Sorry. So, first, yes, we can certainly write with that information and, secondly, we have a case library that we have recently published on our website, which goes through the history of all of our referrals.

Tessa Munt

Thank you. Do you agree with the findings of Chris Henley’s review?

Karen Kneller

Yes.

Tessa Munt

You do; thank you. I want to move particularly to the Andrew Malkinson case. As I think probably everybody knows now, 26 July 2023 was when the Court of Appeal quashed Andrew Malkinson’s convictions, and it was in August 2023 and then April 2024 that Helen Pitcher, as the then chair, apologised to Andrew Malkinson for the CCRC’s handling of his case. Ms Kneller, have you apologised to Andrew Malkinson?

Karen Kneller

Have I apologised?

Tessa Munt

Yes.

Karen Kneller

No, I haven’t.

Tessa Munt

Do you feel that it might be appropriate to pass on that apology now?

Karen Kneller

Absolutely. Without doubt, we got that case wrong and Mr Malkinson was failed. We made mistakes in that case. We apologised—the organisation apologised—and I think the decisions made then around when to apologise are probably decisions that would not be made today, so I absolutely extend my apology to Mr Malkinson. Everyone in the organisation deeply regrets what happened on that case. I cannot begin to think of the impact that this has had on him—I mean, the double impact of serving a sentence and suffering a miscarriage of justice, and then the way that we handled his case; so, absolutely.

Tessa Munt

Thank you. If he follows up on any of these things, he will no doubt be grateful for that, but it was certainly the case that the CCRC’s initial apology was deemed to be inadequate. Chris Henley has said that he provided his report to the CCRC in January 2024. Do you know why it wasn’t published until 18 July 2024?

Karen Kneller

Amanda might be able to help with some of the detail, but my understanding is that the report that we got in January was a draft—it certainly appeared to be one. I believe that it had tracked changes in it.

Amanda Pearce

It might have done. I can’t remember.

Karen Kneller

There were certainly a lot of typographical errors and some factual issues that we needed to pick up with Mr Henley, which I think he was happy to adopt, and then we received the final report from Mr Henley—was it in April?

Amanda Pearce

Yes, the finished report was received in April.

Tessa Munt

That is still three months.

Amanda Pearce

So it was received in April 2024 but before we could publish it, because of the Andrew Malkinson inquiry and the ongoing investigations in relation to the case, we needed to consult with the inquiry, with Greater Manchester Police, with the CPS and with the Independent Office for Police Conduct to check whether there was anything in the report that, if we were to publish it, might prejudice those ongoing investigations and any potential future prosecutions. There was then a period of agreeing redactions to the report, at their request. I think that took us through until about 20 May. We shared the report with Mr Malkinson then; we also shared it with the victim of the original crime at that point. We were ready to publish when the general election was called and were advised not to publish during the general election, so it was eventually published in July.

Tessa Munt

Who advised you of that?

Karen Kneller

I think it was probably the Department, but the guidance that was issued on what you can and cannot do in the pre-election period meant that we could not publish a report of that nature. We wanted to publish, because we had the report, and, as Amanda said, there was an earlier opportunity to publish, but we could not because of the liaison that needed to take place with the inquiries. There were at least two opportunities to publish which we could not take up, but the pre-election guidance was clear that we could not publish in the run-up to the general election.

Chair

I am sorry to interrupt, but that was not Mr Henley’s view, was it? He said that there seemed to be “an attempt to downplay the seriousness” of some of his findings and “a very significant delay between the delivery of my report and its eventual publication. I provided my report to them in January and found it surprising and a little frustrating that it wasn’t published until towards the end of July. I found some of the justification for the delay a little unconvincing. It was obvious to me that their priority was for the report not to present the whole organisation as failing.” What do you say to that?

Karen Kneller

Well, we received in April the final report from Mr Henley, so we could not have published it before then. Then we had the various scenarios that Amanda has just outlined.

Tessa Munt

I am sorry to interrupt, but did you not consider sending it to the IOPC and the other organisations that you mentioned in its draft form? Surely, that would have been sufficient as well and you could have done that in the January.

Amanda Pearce

I think it would still have had to go back because they needed to see the final report to ensure that there was nothing in there—

Tessa Munt

So it didn’t go to them in January.

Amanda Pearce

No, it went to them when we had received the finished report.

Karen Kneller

What we had in January was a draft report.

Tessa Munt

Indeed, you have said. Okay, so Chris Henley’s view was that there was an early “lack of oversight and direction” in relation to Malkinson’s case. Do you feel that you were responsible for that lack of oversight and direction?

Karen Kneller

This was an organisation that, when I arrived, was dealing with a huge backlog of cases that it had inherited from the Home Office. Cases were taking many years before they could even be allocated to a case review manager, so there were cases queuing. We had implemented a new structure of group leaders in the organisation to help support case review managers, so, organisationally, I think that one did not get the right attention and focus that it ought to have got. What happened was that decisions were taken in good faith that took the people working on that case down a particular pathway, and that is where it went wrong.

Tessa Munt

Doing it in good faith is not good enough, is it, when you are talking about justice?

Karen Kneller

No, absolutely. I could not agree with you more, but this was not about anything other than people exercising discretion in judgment, making a mistake at the offset, not understanding issues around key points of evidence, and that took—

Tessa Munt

I am amazed that you are saying that you have case review workers who do not understand the basics of evidence. But we are also talking about the oversight, are we not?

Karen Kneller

That isn’t what I am saying. Amanda might be able to help on the detail, but in an organisation where we are looking at hundreds of cases—

Tessa Munt

But you have said that quality is important.

Karen Kneller

Absolutely, and we have learned from that. What I was trying to go on to say is that we have learned a huge amount from those days. As I arrived in the organisation, it was one where casework wasn’t even really managed. We had no management structures in casework and a case would take as long as it would take. Case review managers were unsupported, so we introduced a system to support them and we have learned a lot from those days. I think that, as a result, we have seen quality and performance improve. But, again, I also urge the Committee that this case is an awful case and there’s absolutely no getting away from that. We got it wrong and everyone in the organisation regrets that, but the majority of our casework is unseen.

Tessa Munt

You have said that, and everyone will understand that. Most of the work that solicitors and barristers do is unseen and the judge’s deliberations are unseen. It is the poor person who has not been served properly who needs to see this stuff sorted out, and sorted out fairly. It is not even as though this is the only time that this has happened. Have you instigated a review of all those cases that were so poorly managed before, because there may well be people languishing in prison who might still be the subject of injustice?

Karen Kneller

The forensic opportunities programme is something that will deal with any of those. If there are some cases in which there have been issues in respect of forensics and DNA, we will find them through that programme.

Tessa Munt

Fine.

Chair

Do you want to go on?

Tessa Munt

Yes, I do, I do, I do. I wondered why the CCRC’s response to the Henley report and the annual report of 2023-24 says that Henley’s findings are “necessarily limited to the Andrew Malkinson case”, because to me the evidence suggests otherwise.

Karen Kneller

Mr Henley’s report was about the Andrew Malkinson case.

Tessa Munt

So you don’t feel that there is any impact on any other.

Karen Kneller

No, I am not saying that at all. I would not discount—

Tessa Munt

That is what the annual report says.

Karen Kneller

We are a learning organisation. All organisations make mistakes and I cannot discount the probability, or possibility, that a mistake has been made in a case elsewhere. We are learning—

Chair

Again, I am sorry to interrupt, but the Henley report says: “I have made a series of recommendations at the end of this report which I believe will, if fully implemented, make it much less likely that things could go as badly wrong for current and future applicants as they did for Mr Malkinson.” It sounds like what you are doing is saying that this is just about Malkinson, because that limits the culpability of the organisation.

Karen Kneller

No, maybe I’m not articulating it very well. We asked Mr Henley to review how we performed in Mr Malkinson’s case. We are learning from the report that Mr Henley produced and implementing the recommendations, which necessarily would apply across all of the casework function. We are not saying that it is just one case where there is an issue, otherwise we would not consider that there was a need to commence a review of our forensic opportunities programme. We accept that we got it badly wrong in Mr Malkinson’s case. What we are doing is learning from that and applying it across the whole organisation.

Tessa Munt

What was the purpose of bringing in the crisis communications consultant in November 2023? That was Chris Webb, was it not?

Karen Kneller

Yes. Mr Webb was brought in because the communications team was a small team at that point. We needed the extra resource and I thought that it would be helpful to have an external perspective.

Tessa Munt

Did he tell you that he had serious concerns about the CCRC’s response to the Henley review?

Karen Kneller

Not that I recall, no.

Tessa Munt

And did the CCRC attempt to edit the review report to water it down in any way?

Karen Kneller

No, absolutely not. There were factual issues, which Amanda picked up with Mr Henley, but absolutely not—absolutely not.

Chair

How much did you pay for the specialist crisis communications consultant?

Karen Kneller

I think it was less than £20,000.

Tessa Munt

And why did he resign?

Karen Kneller

I think he was concerned about whether he could add anything else.

Tessa Munt

That sounds like the end of his job. You are just saying that he got to the end and it was all fine, and off he went, as opposed to—

Karen Kneller

I think he probably—I don’t want to speak for him and I have not had the conversation with him—may have hoped that the report would have been published earlier.

Tessa Munt

And what stopped that?

Karen Kneller

There were a number of issues, some of which Amanda has alluded to, but I cannot really comment any further because I have not had that conversation with Mr Webb.

Tessa Munt

Did you have any concerns yourself about having a conflict of interest in that you had been, as I understand it, responsible in some way for managing the casework at a critical time in the Malkinson case, yet you were also employing the comms specialist to deal with how the organisation—

Karen Kneller

No, not at all, because he was an independent consultant. He was from outside the organisation and brought in that fresh perspective.

Tessa Munt

Okay, thank you. So, you have said that you are learning from everything that happened. I just wondered how you might summarise that learning and whether you might express any regrets that you might have on the way that the CCRC handled the response to Andrew Malkinson’s acquittal and the publication of the Henley report.

Karen Kneller

In respect of the report and its handling, I think it is unfortunate that it took as long as it did to get it published. As Amanda has explained, there were a couple of opportunities when we were ready to publish and couldn’t, but I think we could possibly have got it published earlier, so that is absolutely a regret. In terms of learning, I do not know how much detail you would like us to go into in respect to the recommendations, but there are a lot of recommendations there. We have accepted all of them and added in a few of our own because we want to make sure that we really, really learn from this. I am in your hands about how much detail you want—

Tessa Munt

Probably the best thing that I can ask you to do is to communicate with the Chair after this. If you could write to the Chair explaining exactly those things, that would be very helpful. That would be good because it would make it clear.

Karen Kneller

Absolutely. So there were a number of recommendations and we update the board regularly. I am certainly happy to write to the Committee with our progress in respect of those recommendations.

Tessa Munt

Thank you, and those that you have not progressed already as well.

Karen Kneller

I think they have all been progressed and some have been fully implemented.

Amanda Pearce

Yes.

Karen Kneller

So there is nothing that hasn’t been progressed. We have really gone for it.

Tessa Munt

The other thing that I would quite like you to do is to dig out the instruction that you had not to publish during the period of the general election and send that to the Chair as well. That would be helpful.

Karen Kneller

I do not know whether there is a written instruction, other than the guidance—

Tessa Munt

If you send that to the Chair, that would be fine.

Karen Kneller

Absolutely.

Tessa Munt

Thank you. Turning to the substance of the Henley report’s conclusions and recommendations, we have talked about the main lessons. But there is one bit where the Henley report says that the CCRC needs to aspire to capture more miscarriages of justice and that “The question should always be ‘might this be a miscarriage case’ rather than an exercise in thinking of reasons why the Court of Appeal might reject the referral.” Do you agree with his analysis?

Amanda Pearce

I think we agree that our starting point in every case that comes through our door—every application that we look at—is, “Might this be a miscarriage of justice and what if it is?” But then we have to go on and apply the statutory test to look at, for example, whether the person has exhausted the normal appeal process, whether there is something new and a real possibility of a successful appeal. We are obliged to apply the law that applies to the decisions that we make.

Tessa Munt

I am concerned only because there are other cases, aren’t there, like Nealon, with broadly the same sorts of things? I recognise that that was an old case and before Malkinson, but isn’t there a pattern of trying to see whether it fits into a box and saying, “The Court of Appeal would agree with this”? From what you are saying, you look at it from whether it could be a miscarriage of justice. It looks slightly more process-driven and about whether the Court of Appeal is going to run with it or not. That is how it might look to an outsider, but do you want to comment on that?

Karen Kneller

One of the challenges that we have as an organisation is that we are quite restricted in what we can say, so a lot of our work may look process-driven. We quite often cannot get into the detail of the reasons for why we have or have not referred something—and that bothers us, because what we do is serious and complicated work. It is very difficult getting that message out there, but that is our starting point, as Amanda has explained. It is unfortunate if others perceive it to be something other than that.

Tessa Munt

Thank you. Can I just bring you to the matter of DNA evidence and what kind of training is given to staff on that? Evidently, in 2009 there was DNA evidence that was not properly understood and opportunities to get fuller DNA results that were missed. The CCRC’s response to Chris Henley’s recommendations said that a forensic science and expert evidence adviser would be appointed. Is that adviser in position and what training is given to staff?

Amanda Pearce

There were a couple of recommendations that Mr Henley made around that. He recommended annual DNA training for our staff, so we have arranged three sessions from external providers, late last year and this year, to provide training on DNA evidence. We have appointed a forensic adviser but they are not in post yet. They are going through the pre-employment checks.

Tessa Munt

What kind of turnover of staff do you have?

Amanda Pearce

It is relatively low among our casework staff.

Tessa Munt

Is that three times a year, or whatever you said—

Amanda Pearce

We have done three sessions this year and we will do ongoing training.

Tessa Munt

Everybody is trained already.

Amanda Pearce

Yes.

Tessa Munt

Okay, that is fine. Thank you very much indeed. What of other scientific expertise? You said that you have changed the way that you operate, so how often do you employ forensic experts and specialists?

Amanda Pearce

We would employ forensic experts whenever the case requires it. Whenever there is a possibility that it is a case where there might be an opportunity for forensic evidence, we will take advice from experts—and it is not just forensic science. It could be medical experts or psychiatric evidence.

Tessa Munt

What is the trigger for that? Clearly there has been a big problem in the past, hasn’t there, if no one recognises the importance of somebody who is in prison saying, “I wasn’t there,” and you have DNA evidence? We have several cases, have we not, where the DNA evidence for the person who has been convicted was not evident anywhere? There was nothing, but apparently there was other male DNA on clothing, or whatever. What triggers your caseworkers to go, “Oh—I need an expert”? They would be calling them in all the time, I presume.

Amanda Pearce

It depends on the analysis of the case and, obviously, each case is different. DNA is a complex topic; it can be very significant in some cases and may have no part to play in others, so the decision to seek expert evidence is based on the analysis of the case. Clearly, that analysis was wrong in Mr Malkinson’s case—

Tessa Munt

And others.

Amanda Pearce

And we missed a key detail in that case, but we have now instituted the forensic opportunities programme to look at two things. One is to look at whether there are other cases where we have missed opportunities to obtain forensic evidence. It is also to revisit cases which we perhaps last looked at 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Forensic science moves on and there may be opportunities in those cases that simply did not exist when we last looked at them. That programme is in operation now to revisit those cases, identify forensic opportunities and pursue them.

Tessa Munt

So what you are saying to me is that the recommendation Chris Henley made about every case—all cases that related to the possibility of where there were DNA opportunities that might need to be looked at again—is in train, because you have adopted all his recommendations, and that is happening.

Amanda Pearce

That programme of work had actually started before Mr Henley’s recommendation. We had done some initial work on it. In order to make it manageable, we are focused initially on cases where the applicant was convicted of either rape or murder, or attempts, before 1 January 2016, which is allowing for a margin of error for DNA-17 to have come in. We are looking at those as our first cohort of cases but we may then expand it to other offences. I am not sure that Mr Henley appreciated the scale and volume of the cases that we dealt with, and the number that it might entail to look at every case where there are potential DNA opportunities.

Tessa Munt

But every case is a person.

Amanda Pearce

Absolutely, but, as I say, we have started with the rape and murder cases first and can then move on to other cases once we have done those.

Tessa Munt

Thank you.

Chair

I wonder if that might be an opportunity to take a five-minute break, which I will do now. We will resume at 3.35 pm. We may need to go a little bit after 4.30 pm to make up the time and ensure that we cover the areas we want to, so I hope you will bear with us. The Committee was suspended. On resuming—

Chair

We are resuming this afternoon’s session of the Justice Committee, looking at the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and hearing from its chief executive, Karen Kneller, and casework operations director, Amanda Pearce. The next set of questions will come from Sarah Russell.

Mrs Russell

Thank you for returning. I am interested in the Post Office cases. I can see here, for instance, from the Library that David Hedges was convicted of theft and false accounting in January 2011. You received an application for review of the conviction in November 2015 and that case was referred to the Court of Appeal in 2020. There appear to be a number of cases with that sort of timescale. Do you feel that they were dealt with in a timely fashion?

Karen Kneller

I think there were a lot of external factors there in respect of litigation.

Amanda Pearce

Yes, at the time that we were conducting our reviews of the first batch of Post Office cases that we received, we were also aware that civil litigation was ongoing and that the outcome of that civil litigation would be important. I think that the judgment on that litigation was given in December 2019 and we referred our first cases around June 2020, so it was the decision in the civil case which was really significant and key to those referrals. Once we had got that, we moved very quickly. In the earlier review that we conducted, we hadn’t found a basis for referral, but we were mindful that the civil litigation was ongoing at the same time and that its outcome would be really significant.

Mrs Russell

Did the people whose cases they were want you to wait for the outcome of the civil litigation?

Amanda Pearce

Without the outcome of the civil litigation, there was not a basis to refer the cases. The civil litigation made that really critical finding that the Horizon system was flawed, and once we had that decision it enabled us to refer the cases. The people whose cases we were looking at at that time were kept informed and were aware that we were waiting for the outcome of the civil litigation.

Mrs Russell

Thank you. In terms of the questions that I asked earlier about the £2.8 million in the budget, you referred to IT spend. But I have had a little look and IT spend accounts for only about £600,000-worth of that £2.8 million. The biggest tranche of it, at £700,000 or so, appears to just say “Assorted expenses”. From the accounts, it is difficult to gain an understanding of what that £2.8 million was spent on when the largest single item in it is completely undetailed.

Karen Kneller

If it would assist the Committee, because I do not have all the numbers in my head, it would probably be better if we wrote with a more detailed breakdown. I would anticipate that there are all sorts of things in there, including depreciation of assets. But I don’t want to mislead you or take us up a garden path.

Mrs Russell

Depreciation of assets is dealt with separately. Of that £2.8 million, there is a £300,000-worth training budget in there. It seems reasonable to me that, if you have done a review, you would want to train your staff; no one is going to dispute some of that cost, but it is about understanding where that better part of 800,000 grand went and what on. Out of a £10 million budget—I think it is meant to be about an £8 million budget—that is a significant proportion of your spend to have no transparency around.

Karen Kneller

I am sure that there is the transparency. If it is not there, we can certainly write on that. I simply do not have those details in my head, but we can absolutely provide that information.

Mrs Russell

Thank you. It would be nice to understand what proportion of it was the crisis comms when you write.

Karen Kneller

I think I said earlier that the crisis comms was under £20,000. When we engaged the consultant to support the comms team I think he was engaged for about six months, but the spend was under £20,000.

Mrs Russell

In terms of the commissioners and their commissioner roles, how do they typically spend their time?

Karen Kneller

Commissioners are appointed to take decisions in cases and that is where they spend the majority of their time. In some cases—Amanda might want to expand on this—we will nominate a commissioner to take the lead on a case if it is perhaps a particularly complex one, or a long-running one for whatever reason. Part of the time is spent on overseeing and supervising certain cases, but the majority of their time is spent on taking final decisions in cases.

Amanda Pearce

That is right. They will either sit as a committee of three commissioners where there is a possibility of referral of a case or make decisions as individual commissioners if the recommendation is that there is no basis for referral, and they can move from that single commissioner to a committee if they disagree. A case review manager will carry out the review, conduct the necessary investigations and make a recommendation, and then the case will go to a commissioner for decision; but, as Karen says, there are cases where we appoint a commissioner at an earlier stage if there are critical decisions to be made, for example.

Mrs Russell

In the past year how many of those cases that have gone to a single commissioner have been escalated to a three-person panel?

Amanda Pearce

I would have to check; I don’t know offhand. I do not think it will be a huge number, but I would have to check.

Mrs Russell

The Criminal Appeals Act 1995 makes provision for no fewer than 11 commissioners. How many FTE commissioners are there at present?

Karen Kneller

We have nine commissioners—nine heads—at the moment. As to the FTE, I am not sure what that would be, but typically—I say “typically”, but on average—they are probably doing a couple of days a week on decision making.

Mrs Russell

Does that equate to maybe two or three people full time?

Amanda Pearce

It is probably slightly above that.

Mrs Russell

Do you feel that is adequate?

Karen Kneller

No. We do not have enough commissioners. Currently, there is a commissioner recruitment exercise. That is probably halfway through. I would hope we would have additional commissioners arriving by Christmas. So, no, we don’t have enough commissioners. Ideally, we would have been in the position of commencing a campaign to appoint new commissioners probably two years or so ago, but it did not happen for various reasons. We absolutely have an issue of not having enough commissioners, but that is only because we were overdue a recruitment exercise.

Mrs Russell

When did you last do a recruitment exercise?

Karen Kneller

We were hoping to start one about two years ago. The last one was probably five years ago, in 2020.

Mrs Russell

Why has there not been one in the intervening period?

Karen Kneller

For a number of reasons. First, it is not on the commission. As an arm’s length body, the Ministry of Justice deals with this for us. We work very closely with them on that. There were concerns and issues around the fee that commissioners were getting and whether it was sufficiently high to be able to retain commissioners. We saw some commissioners appointed and then leave to take up judicial careers, which was fantastic for them but clearly an issue for us. I think it took longer than we would all have liked to resolve the fee issue. Once that was resolved, the MOJ was able to start the recruitment exercise. Then, of course, the general election got in the way as well. We are certainly understaffed in terms of the number of commissioners. There is no doubt about that.

Mrs Russell

Can you explain to me exactly what you see as having been your role in this? It sounds like you are describing a situation in which you have been profoundly understaffed at a very senior level of, arguably, the most important people in your organisation.

Karen Kneller

Absolutely.

Mrs Russell

You have not done any recruitment of them for five years. I understand you say that that was ultimately in the gift of the MOJ, but how long have you been understaffed for and what lobbying have you done of the MOJ? How has this situation arisen?

Karen Kneller

Probably three years ago, or possibly longer, we started negotiations around the fee. I cannot talk on behalf of the MOJ, but I know this is a department that is running a number of campaigns and it is a department under pressure, but there was regular contact from me and others in the organisation. Until we could resolve the fee issue we could not move to start the recruitment exercise.

Mrs Russell

Why not?

Karen Kneller

Because one of our concerns was not only around retention but ensuring that we were able to attract people who could effectively afford to give up one role to join us, so our view was that that fee needed to be pitched at the right level.

Amanda Pearce

It is worth saying that the commissioners we do have, where possible, have done additional days wherever they can to support the work over this period as well.

Karen Kneller

In particular, a couple of commissioners who have a lot more free time have flexed up and done substantially more days.

Mrs Russell

Do you feel that this in any way contributed to the sense reflected in the chair’s letter, and apparently in previous ones, that management in this organisation was not as it should have been?

Karen Kneller

No. I think that is a completely distinct issue. The characterisation in that resignation letter is not one that I or any of the senior team, or anyone in the organisation, recognise.

Mrs Russell

In terms of the unfavourable reports around your leadership, you appear to have undertaken some training. How did you make the decision as to what training you would have?

Karen Kneller

The business school in question provided training which was commensurate with the work senior leaders or chief executives do, and it was entirely suited to the work I was doing in my role. All public leaders take training. That particular business school came highly recommended by the ex-chair because she herself had gone through some of its programmes. That is the reason we opted for the training at that particular institution.

Mrs Russell

To go back a step, how did you decide what your training needs were?

Karen Kneller

In discussion with the new chair, as she was then, my own concerns were around the fact—I have been chief executive for 12 years; I am entering my 13th year—that I had not taken the opportunity of doing any external training, which I do not think is good. I think it sends a bad message to your own organisation. A commission model is quite an unusual one. It has a lot of challenges in terms of governance and how you deal with those issues and run the organisation. Those were a number of the factors I had in mind when I was looking for how I could best develop with the support of a business school, and it provided what seemed to be something that was perfectly suited.

Mrs Russell

What review did you do of the market?

Karen Kneller

I compared and contrasted what other offers were available, including here in London, and there was absolutely nothing that matched that offer. The people who go to that business school are from the commercial sector, public sector, third sector and are UK-based, European and wider afield, so the skill mix, experience and what you get from that sort of environment is hard to match. In terms of quality, I think it was second to none. I would not have done it otherwise.

Mrs Russell

Can I ask a specific question around that?

Karen Kneller

Sure.

Mrs Russell

What did you gain specifically from going to INSEAD in Paris?

Karen Kneller

It is management and leadership training, so it is all about my development as a leader and things around resilience and taking an organisation through incredibly turbulent times. We were going through covid; we were becoming a remote-working organisation, so there were some significant cultural issues to deal with there. We were leading a massive digital transformation programme and also dealing with an increasing intake; lots more people were coming to us; there was a much higher intake from new applicants, so it was leading on significant transformation while improving the performance of the organisation. Those were all things that I took from INSEAD. It is very difficult because, for leadership training, it is quite difficult to point to one tangible thing. I suppose one would be the digital transformation; another tangible thing would be the successful move to remote working in such a way that we were able to continue to do casework. If we had not moved to remote working I think our casework would have suffered significantly, because we simply could not get people in post.

Chair

Can you confirm that the figures quoted in The Guardian were correct? The course you went on cost more than £21,000 for 10 days’ teaching over three trips, as well as a week-long programme on digital disruption and innovation. There was also a three-day leading from the chair course in 2021, the current fees for which are £7,500. Are those the sorts of sums we are talking about for your training?

Karen Kneller

I do not know if those precise sums are those that we paid. I guess that was what they were advertised at as of the time of that article. What I can say is that over the course of my 12 or 13 years as chief executive the organisation has invested around £50,000 in my development.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

To pick up that strand, you have been in charge for 12 to 13 years now. Are you saying this is the first time you were offered external training or the first time you took up that opportunity?

Karen Kneller

I think it was the first time I actually paused to consider doing it, because I had been busy in the organisation running it. It was only as a new chair came in that there were conversations about what development I had had.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

You would have been aware that you would want those who worked under you to do professional development. You did not consider it was appropriate for you to do the same.

Karen Kneller

It was absolutely not that I did not consider that it was not appropriate for me to do the same. As a chief executive, it is such a full-time job that it is finding the time to do it. It simply was not the case of not thinking I needed to do it; it was the first time someone said to me, “I think it’s time to prioritise your own development a little bit.”

Dr Shastri-Hurst

You were in a senior management position and you did not consider it a priority for you to ensure that you were developing so that you could provide an organisation with the leadership that it required.

Karen Kneller

My development was something I dealt with personally, myself, rather than going through external training. That was something I did for myself, but as to external training, I simply hadn’t—maybe it was a mistake and I ought to have done it a few years earlier—but I did not.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

In that case, can you set out what new professional development you did do in those 12 or 13 years and the number of hours on average per year?

Karen Kneller

No, I cannot, because I am saying that what I did was personal reflective stuff, reading around, for example.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

No formalised training.

Karen Kneller

No. I am saying that is the only formalised external training I have had as a chief executive.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

No formalised internal training either.

Karen Kneller

No, not as chief executive. I certainly would have taken part in the casework training but not as a senior leader.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

Following Helen Pitcher’s resignation, there were a number of—it would be fair to say—unfavourable reports in the media, including The Guardian. In one of those, staff were reported as describing you as being absent in your leadership, with your finger off the pulse. How would you describe those assessments? Do you think they are fair?

Karen Kneller

No. I do not recognise that at all. I was very much in the organisation. That was one of the reasons I had not taken opportunities to go outside and undertake external stuff. I have been highly visible in the organisation, with weekly updates to staff and monthly staff briefings. I am in calls and meetings all the time. That is not something that I recognise.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

Am I right in thinking that you are an employed barrister?

Karen Kneller

Yes.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

Are you still a registered barrister?

Karen Kneller

Yes.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

I am a registered barrister and I have professional development requirements each year that have to be formalised and documented. Were you doing that over the past decade or so?

Karen Kneller

Yes. When I am talking about training, I am talking about training as a senior leader.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

You were doing separate training as a barrister.

Karen Kneller

Yes; I was doing my own personal development.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

Can I row back to the issue around commissioners? In your tenure, when was the last time you had a full complement of 11 commissioners?

Karen Kneller

I am not sure. A couple of years ago we had a commissioner who retired early. I think that at that point we had 11.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

A couple of years ago. Was that two or three years ago?

Amanda Pearce

I don’t think it would be as long as three years ago; I would say probably 18 months to two years.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

Could you write to the Chair and set out precisely the last time you had a full complement?

Karen Kneller

Absolutely.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

You mentioned in response to a question about the role of the commissioners that they worked one or two days a week. My understanding was that they were appointed for 52 days per year. Is that two or three days per week and then taking in time that they are not working? Some weeks they don’t work; some weeks they do. Would it average out at 52 days a year?

Karen Kneller

They are appointed on a minimum of 52 days, absolutely, but the majority of them do more than that. I don’t think there are very many who do only a day a week, if any at all.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

Given the complex nature of the work, do you think it is sufficient, even if they are doing two days a week, to be able to get a handle on what are complicated and challenging cases?

Karen Kneller

I do. The challenge we have is that we do not have enough commissioners, but it is about the quality of the commissioner. I think our commissioners absolutely can do that.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

You have said there are not enough commissioners. We know that you are under the minimum. How many do you think you need realistically to do the job to the standard that the public would expect?

Karen Kneller

I think we probably could do with another half a dozen or so.

Amanda Pearce

At least.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

About 15 or 16.

Karen Kneller

Yes.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

So we are some way short.

Karen Kneller

Yes.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

Turning to the role of the chair, Helen Pitcher was appointed on an agreement that she would work 10 days per month over a three-year term. Do you think that is adequate in terms of time commitment to this role?

Karen Kneller

As the commission is currently structured I think it is, yes.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

The predecessor—in fact the initial holder of the office of chair, Sir Frederick Crawford—worked significantly more than that. I am also aware that Helen Pitcher had a number of other positions. Given the real importance of this—these are individuals; these are not statistics—should this not have the sole focus of an individual who is chairing and leading this organisation?

Karen Kneller

As the commission is currently structured, the Chair role is a part-time role. I am not sure it is for me—it is possibly for others—to comment on how or what other roles they should be doing with the rest of their time.

Dr Shastri-Hurst

In your tenure—I think it is just captured in your tenure—we have moved from commissioners being a full-time appointment to a part-time appointment in 2017. What was the rationale behind moving from one model to the other?