Dr Minh Alexander retired consultant psychiatrist 22 June 2023
The letter below, sent today to the parliamentary Justice Committee, is hopefully self-explanatory.
BY EMAIL
Sir Robert Neill MP and colleagues
Justice Select Committee
22 June 2023
Dear Sir Robert and colleagues,
Processes for reviewing and assuring the fitness of senior officers of the Criminal Cases Review Commission
I write to raise a concern about procedures for reviewing the fitness of senior officers of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
I raised a concern with Helen Pitcher Chair of CCRC about the suitability of the CCRC CEO arising from actions and omissions in her ongoing capacity as a non executive board member of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHB).
The trust has been undergoing multiple investigations following concerns of poor governance, whistleblower victimisation, a “toxic” culture with reported “cronyism” and patient safety failings.
In particular, I was concerned about the UHB trust board’s actions in ratifying an internal Fit and Proper Person investigation of the former UHB trust Chief Executive. The investigation was launched after he was criticised by the Employment Tribunal for conduct towards a senior medical whistleblower, and related referrals were made to the Care Quality Commission by several external parties, myself included, under CQC Regulation 5 Fit and Proper Persons.
The Employment Tribunal’s criticism included the fact that the former UHB CEO made a misleading referral to the General Medical Council in which he omitted to declare as required, that the whistleblower was a whistleblower. For this he later received a formal warning from the General Medical Council, as a registered medical practitioner himself.
The subsequent UHB trust internal Fit and Proper Person investigation which reportedly exonerated the trust CEO (it has never been published or even shared with the whistleblower) was undertaken by a subordinate trust manager who was not a board member, assisted by a lawyer from a firm retained by the trust, which had been paid £497K for other services in the three previous years. It could not be described as an independent investigation and a probity issue arises from the fact that a subordinate employee was put in this position.
This was compounded by the fact that UHB misled the whistleblower and informed him wrongly in correspondence that the assisting law firm was independent and without current or previous links to the trust.
There were a number of procedural irregularities in the manner in which the whistleblower had been disciplined, suspended and dismissed by the trust, which were criticised by the Employment Tribunal. These breached a principle that NHS doctors should be disciplined with regards to Article 6 rights.
Documents were repeatedly withheld from the whistleblower and from the Employment Tribunal, which had the effect of concealing the fact that he was suspended on a false premise, which the Employment Tribunal determined the former UHB CEO should have known was false. The Employment Tribunal judge indicated in a costs judgment against the trust that he could not rule out “deliberate dishonesty” by the trust and key players, or that there would not be future serious governance failures of this sort.
The CRCC CEO had sight of the trust’s internal Fit and Proper Person Investigation report exonerating the former UHB CEO. She is on record as having reassured the trust governors that the investigation was sound. The minutes state at a UHB Council of Governors’ meeting on 29 July 2021:
“Karen Kneller also wished to provide reassurance to the Governors that the NEDs are particularly enquiring and have examined the situation thoroughly to their satisfaction and all are happy with the review.”
Although I am informed by an individual who actually witnessed the meeting that their recollection is that she stated there was “no smoking gun”.
The former CEO of UHB announced his retirement on the day that the first investigation report on the trust was published, on 28 March 2023.
Helen Pitcher also received information about the understandably serious impact of events on the whistleblower.
The issue I wish to raise with Justice Select Committee is this:
Helen Pitcher initially informed me via her Office on 14 April 2023 that she would consider my concerns and respond within twenty eight days.
On 18 May 2023 Ms Pitcher’s Office informed me that enquiries continued and that there was no date for completion.
On 2 June 2023, after an enquiry, the same message was given again.
There was no date set for review/ update.
I understand that serious matters take time to consider, but I am concerned by this open-ended approach to a serious matter, by an agency that is supposed to be all about fairness and accountability and should be above reproach.
It does not seem to me to be a sufficiently accountable approach.
I ask Justice Committee to note it for any future consideration of the effectiveness of the CCRC and CCRC’s governance.
I should note that parallel to this matter, NHS England’s “Well Led” investigation of UHB is expected to conclude early next month. There is reason to have modest expectations of this given that NHS regulators have repeatedly protected and helped to recycle erring NHS senior managers, which was a trigger for the NHS Kark review on the Fit and Proper Test in the NHS. The report of this review by Tom Kark KC was published over four years ago, but reflecting the recalcitrant nature of NHS senior management culture, its implementation was entrusted to NHS England and it has not yet been implemented.
I copy below the relevant correspondence from the CCRC showing its initial response and later responses with no identified timescale for completion or even review and update.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Minh Alexander
NHS whistleblower and retired consultant psychiatrist
Cc Health and Social Care Committee
From: REDACTED
Subject: FW: Concern about Karen Kneller’s role as Criminal Cases Review Commission CEO
Date: 14 April 2023 at 14:50:04 BST
To: REDACTED
Dear Dr Alexander
I confirm that your correspondence of 13 April 2023 has been passed to Helen Pitcher.
Ms Pitcher will consider the contents and respond to you within 28 days.
Please could I also ask that you direct any further correspondence on this matter to this address rather than the Commission’s general mailbox.
Yours sincerely
Kind regards,
REDACTED
Executive Assistant to the Chairman | CCRC
From: REDACTED
Subject: FW: Concern about Karen Kneller’s role as Criminal Cases Review Commission CEO
Date: 18 May 2023 at 15:51:04 BST
To: REDACTED
Dear Dr Alexander
Further to recent correspondence, Ms Pitcher has asked me to confirm that matters remain under consideration and inquiries are underway.
At this stage, we do not have a date for completion, but we will inform you of the outcome in due course.
Yours sincerely,
REDACTED
From: REDACTED
Subject: RE: Concern about Karen Kneller’s role as Criminal Cases Review Commission CEO
Date: 9 June 2023 at 10:49:39 BST
To: REDACTED
Dear Dr Alexander,
Thank you for your recent email.
Our inquiries remain underway. We do not have a specific completion date but will inform you of the outcome as soon as we can.
Yours sincerely,
REDACTED
Executive Assistant to the Chairman | CCRC
RELATED ITEMS
There is a difference in Karen Kneller’s declaration of interests at UHB and her declaration of interests at CCRC, which are more extensive.
This is her declaration of interests at UHB taken from a published trust document of 2020 (the most recent I could find):
Kneller has since resigned as a director of BRAP as of 10 January 2023.
This is Kneller’s declaration of interests at the CCRC, disclosed via FOI on 20 April 2023:
Mr Tristan Reuser’s whistleblowing case: Scandalous employer and regulatory behaviour on FPPR
Alexander's Excavations 
Excellent – if only our elected officials and holders of public offices had the same clarity of purpose. And this level skill and commitment to hold errant parties to account!
LikeLike