CCRC chairs will face MPs' scrutiny, government reveals in response to scathing report

The role of Criminal Cases Review Commission chair will be added to the list of roles subject to pre-appointment scrutiny, the government has revealed in a response to the justice committee’s highly critical report on the body.

Pe-appointment scrutiny aims to provide an additional safeguard to verify that the new hire meets the principles set out in the governance code for public appointments. The chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the chair of the office for legal complaints are two such roles.

In her response to the justice committee’s recommendation that the chair should have a criminal justice background and ‘recognised experience’ in that field, Alex Davies-Jones, minister for victims and violence against women, said the MoJ would be looking to recruit a ‘suitably qualified candidate’ who can ‘inspire confidence in its role for applicants and the public, and engage constructively with stakeholders’.

She added: ‘We will also consider the views of the interim chair on what qualities are essential for the next chair, following completion of her review. The justice committee will have the ability to scrutinise the qualities it believes are important for the role during pre-appointment scrutiny.’

In its report published earlier this year, the committee criticised then chief executive Karen Kneller and said it was ‘untenable’ for the barrister to continue in her role. She resigned weeks later.

The report also criticised the CCRC’s late publishing of Chris Henley KC’s independent review into the handling of the Andrew Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Kneller had told the review that the decision to not publish the report until later in the year was taken because the CCRC was advised not to publish during the general election period.

The committee said it did ‘not understand’ why the CCRC ‘would consider itself bound by the government’s general election guidance’ adding: ‘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applicable, we do not understand why applying that guidance would lead to the conclusion that the report should not be published, given that this was not a party-political issue.

‘We were not convinced by Karen Kneller and [now interim chief executive] Amanda Pearce’s explanation that publication was impossible. Given the CCRC’s constitutional independence and the importance of the report, the leadership of the CCRC should have arrived at their own view as to whether publication at the earliest possible date was necessary, whatever the guidance or the Ministry of Justice said.’

Davies-Jones agreed that the handling of the Henley report ‘damaged the reputation of the CCRC in the eyes of the public’. She added: ‘The Ministry of Justice concluded that publication of the report should be delayed as a result of this consideration, and sought views from the Cabinet Office, which produces the general election guidance, on this matter. The Cabinet Office agreed with the Ministry of Justice position.’