Law & Order - Stories/Debate of Legislation

Whether for more serious and specific cases to bring wider reaching attention, or on tips in how to challenge a neighbour cutting down your tree… we can all learn from the wide reaching aspect of litigation.
Mods, please merge with another thread if deemed appropriate.

Miscarriage of justice watchdog chief quits after public confidence ‘badly damaged’

Story by Alexandra Topping


Karen Kneller had been chief executive of the CCRC since 2013.

The chief executive of the miscarriage of justice watchdog for England, Wales and Northern Ireland has resigned after months of speculation after serious failings in the case of Andrew Malkinson.

Karen Kneller, who had held the position since 2013 and had been in senior roles at the organisation for two decades, has left the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) after one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history, it was announced on Wednesday.

Malkinson, who spent 17 years in prison for a rape in Greater Manchester that he did not commit, was cleared in July 2023. His case was knocked back twice by the CCRC until his legal team carried out crucial DNA testing that was repeated by the commission and led to his release.

In February, the Guardian revealed that Kneller had spent thousands of pounds of public money on luxury French hotels while enrolled on courses at an elite business school at which the CCRC’s then chair held positions.

Kneller regularly attended Insead business school in Fontainebleau over the past five years. Her stays included a director’s course with fees advertised in February at more than £21,000 for 10 days’ teaching over three trips, as well as a week-long programme on “digital disruption and innovation”. She also took a three-day “leading from the chair” course in 2021, the fees for which are £7,500.

Helen Pitcher, the former chair of the CCRC, held multiple positions at Insead while Kneller attended these courses, including as president of the business school’s directors network board.

Pitcher’s spokesperson said at the time that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) had approved the business case for Kneller to attend Insead and that she “fully declared” her interests with the business school. A government source said the spending on Kneller’s courses at the business school did “not reflect the new government’s expectations of the best use of the CCRC’s funding”.

Pitcher quit in January after an independent panel concluded she was no longer fit to be chair after the CCRC’s failings in Malkinson’s case. Pitcher said she had been scapegoated.

A report on the CCRC’s handling of the case in July last year found “a catalogue of failures”, including that Malkinson could have been exonerated almost a decade earlier. Thousands of cases are now being reviewed as a result of the botched process.

Kneller was accused of attempting to “sanitise” the independent review by Chris Henley KC. Sources said that after she saw a draft criticising the body, she pushed hard to make sure there was no suggestion that the problems in the handling of Malkinson’s case were systemic.

A month before Malkinson’s exoneration, Kneller was given a 7.5% pay rise, including a bonus of up to £10,000. In 2024 she was given a further pay rise and another bonus, taking her pay to about £130,000, while Malkinson was on benefits.

Writing in the Guardian after his release, Malkinson said he had left prison impoverished, “living on universal credit, homeless and in urgent need of mental health support from clinicians who would at last recognise what I had been through in the past 20 years”. The MoJ agreed to give Malkinson a payout, more than a year and a half after the court of appeal declared his innocence.

Kneller’s departure comes after another damning report on the leadership of the CCRC in May, in which the House of Commons justice committee said Kneller had provided it with unpersuasive evidence and her position was no longer tenable.

The CCRC had continually failed to learn from its mistakes and its chief executive should follow the organisation’s chair out the door, MPs said.

Sources inside the CCRC said there had been a rising frustration within the organisation in recent years that thinly stretched staff who cared about uncovering miscarriages of justice had been badly represented by its leaders, who they said “haven’t got a clue”.

Sources said Pitcher “would conduct Teams meetings from the balcony of her villa in the sunshine” in Montenegro and boast about her jetset life in weekly memos to staff.

Kneller was said to have been given the nickname “Karen Invisible” by staff. She was described by some of those working for her as “absent”, with her “finger off the pulse”.

Related: ‘Catalogue of failures’: watchdog missed chances to help Andrew Malkinson, report finds

Last month the former victims’ commissioner Dame Vera Baird became the interim chair of the CCRC, having been asked by the justice secretary to carry out a review of the organisation.

“The CCRC has a vital role to play in the criminal justice system, but confidence in the organisation has been badly damaged. Confidence in our work must be restored. I thank Karen for her work at the CCRC over many years,” said Baird.

2 Likes

With the frequency Barton finds himself being hauled into court… the guy is going to end up totally broke.

Jeremy Vine reveals what will happen if Joey Barton fails to pay staggering legal bill

Story by Zoe Delaney


Jeremy Vine

TV presenter Jeremy Vine has released a lengthy statement regarding his recent legal action again Joey Barton - claiming that the former footballer has paid out more than half a million pounds after their High Court libel battle.

Vine sued Barton for libel and harassment over several online posts, including one in which he falsely called the BBC Radio 2 presenter a “big bike nonce” and a “pedo defender” on Twitter (X).

The pair settled the claim last year after Barton posted two apologies on the same social media platform and paid a total of £110,000 in damages to Vine, as well as his legal costs.


Joey Barton with a mic outside a court

However, there had been some confusion regarding the exact amount Barton would pay out - something Vine has now attempted to clear up. In a series of tweets on Twitter (X), the The Jeremy Vine Show host told his followers he has “no further beef with Mr Barton” and “it is a relief just to be vindicated and to have the case settled so decisively”.

He began his thread with: "STATEMENT Thank-you for such kind messages about my libel action against Joey Barton. I can confirm it is now concluded and I am satisfied with the result. Mr Barton has now paid out more than half a million pounds in my case alone.

"There seems to be some confusion about the stages of the case. The below is to explain the numbers. I have no further beef with Mr Barton, who has a series of ongoing legal problems to deal with. While defending my libel action, he also became a convicted wifebeater.

"My damages in the case were £110,000. These were paid last year, and Mr Barton made the agreed public apology. But my costs in bringing the case were between 180 and 190k. Mr Barton pledged in court to pay the costs, then chose to argue that the figure was too high.

“Frustratingly, this meant I had to bring a separate action to recover my costs. The separate action also had a cost to it. Mr Barton surrendered on the main costs two days before the costs recovery action, but it was too late to avoid being liable for the costs recovery action.”


eremy Vine in a shirt, jacket and jeans riding a bike wearing a yellow helmet

Vine went on to explain what would happen should Barton not pay the money he owes and itemised the staggering bill the former footballer has to pay.

“So Barton paid for the libel. He paid the costs. He paid interest on the costs. He paid the cost of losing a challenge on the costs. And he paid his own costs, which will be more than mine because he had fancier lawyers. He has lost at least half a million pounds,” Vine told his followers.

"BARTON’S BILL 110k — the libel. 160k — my costs. 3.6k — interest on costs. 43k — my costs recovery action. 200k — his costs. MINIMUM £516,600. People asked, ‘What if Barton refuses to pay, or can’t pay?’ To ensure he had the funds, I had to commission legal searches on his house. He owns it outright. Lawyers advised me that if he did not pay, they could put a charge on his house.

“This would mean Mr Barton would effectively become my tenant, paying me rent to live there. If he fell behind with the rent, I would have the right to evict him or force the sale of his house to recoup my debt.”

Vine concluded with: "I had no wish to be in that position and I am grateful to my lawyers in ensuring we got the final payments in today. My barrister is Gervase de Wilde @5RB and my solicitor is Judith Thompson, who specialises in online defamation. If you need her she is here: @devonsolicitors.

“I may return to this subject in due course but for now it is a relief just to be vindicated and to have the case settled so decisively. Thank-you for reading this, especially if you sent messages of support. JV.”

In an agreed statement read out at the High Court in October last year, barrister Gervase de Wilde, for Vine, said that the broadcaster “was deeply alarmed, distressed and upset” by Barton’s actions, which included a “persistent and highly damaging campaign of defamation, harassment and misuse of private information”.

Earlier this month, a specialist costs court heard that Barton had agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine’s costs from the main legal action. Costs Judge Colum Leonard also ordered Barton to pay a further £43,172.30 arising from the negotiation of the £160,000 figure, meaning he will pay a total of £203,172.30 of Vine’s costs following the legal action.

Lawyers for Vine told the High Court in May last year that Barton’s posts amounted to a “calculated and sustained attack”. Barton – who played for teams including Manchester City, Newcastle United, Rangers, and French side Marseille during his career – also began using “#bikenonce” on X, which led to it trending on the platform.

After Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that some of the posts could defame Vine, Barton apologised to the journalist in June last year, stating that the allegations he made were “untrue”.

He said that he would pay Vine £75,000 in damages, but solicitors for Vine later said Barton would pay a further £35,000 as part of a "separate settlement"for claims published after legal action began.

Mr De Wilde told the October hearing that Barton made four undertakings as part of the settlement, including not to harass Vine or encourage others to do so. Vine said following that hearing that Barton “needs to find himself a different hobby”.

EDIT: 48hrs Later