Pitched Out
“Nothing in life became him, like the leaving of it.” Substitute “job” for “life” and it is what those leaving an important role should aim for. Not so Helen Pitcher, the now ex-Head of the CCRC whose self-pitying interview about being made a scapegoat for the CCRC’s failures in the Andy Malkinson case can be read here.
A summary of the Malkinson case:
- Andy Malkinson was convicted of a particularly brutal rape in 2004. His conviction was quashed in 2023 after two previous applications to the CCRC to take his case in 2009 and 2018 (when Helen Pitcher became its Chair) were turned down. It was quashed on the basis that there was clear forensic and other evidence in the hands of the authorities which proved his innocence, which had been in their possession for some considerable time and which should have been disclosed long before it was.
- A separate inquiry into how this miscarriage of justice occurred was set up in November 2023. The Henley Report was only into the conduct of the CCRC, which so completely messed up its handling of the Andy Malkinson case that he spent a decade more in prison than he needed to. The CCRC’s particular failings were that:
- It fundamentally misunderstood the legal test it was meant to apply.
- Was inadequately trained to understand forensic evidence.
- Failed to do the necessary inquiries including, unforgivably, twice failing to ask for the original police file.
- Was unacceptably dilatory and incompetent in its handling of the application with case workers failing to ask “obvious questions” and being “insufficiently curious”.
- Finally, when the appeal was granted, it was misleading in its public statements about its role in that successful appeal.
After publication of the report and in response to the Justice Minister’s view that she needed to go, Helen Pitcher’s response was that no, she wouldn’t since she “honestly” thought she was the best person for the job. (This was an example of the “I apologise but I am still the right person to be in charge” Apology. This is not really an apology at all or directed at the victims, other than in a PR sense. Rather it is a coded message to the ultimate bosses that “I may have presided over and been responsible for an utter mess which has ruined other’s lives but if you think I am going to be forced out without a fight and a gigantic pay-off, think again”.)
Given the severe criticisms in the report, it is hard to see on what basis she could say this or, indeed, why she thought that her opinion should be listened to. This was especially so given that her response to the successful appeal was slyly to try and take credit for the work of others, in particular, the charity, APPEAL, which had done the work which the CCRC should have done and which resulted in his conviction being quashed. The report specifically described this failing and criticised her for it.
None of this is apparent from her interview which complains that she was not in charge for the entire time (true but irrelevant), that others, similarly responsible, had not been criticised and that she had been made a scapegoat. This last complaint is now the way in which leaders at the top of organisations seek to sidestep the fundamental characteristic of leadership, namely taking responsibility, regardless of one’s personal actions. “Scapegoat” is not a synonym for “leader“. It was Lord Carrington, Foreign Secretary at the time of the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982, who resigned on 5 April, 3 days after the invasion and, though later absolved of personal blame by the Franks Report, explained his decision to resign thus in his autobiography:
“The nation feels that there has been a disgrace. Someone must have been to blame. The disgrace must be purged. The person to purge it should be the minister in charge. That was me.”
This is what leadership is meant to mean. Taking responsibility for what happens when you are in charge, not issuing grovelling or insincere apologies then hanging on, as if your personal position is more important than anything else. Nor complaining bitterly in a “me, me, me” resignation letter. (Malkinson’s response to her shameless self-justification can be read here.) Leaders are – or should be – servants of the organisations they work for. They should also understand that taking responsibility because you are the person in charge is the quid pro quo for the glory and rewards of being the man or woman at the top. Not an optional extra.
Ms Pitcher also complained bitterly that what happened to her would make others query the value of going into public life. Hardly, given that she was also appointed the Head of the Judicial Appointments Commission, a role for which she had no obvious qualifications and, despite the obvious conflict of interest, was also given the CCRC role. She had a total of 8 roles, a mix of private and public ones. (When Malkinson was finally absolved she was busy selling timeshares in Montenegro, one of her business interests.) She is not the only one. Tim Parker, Chair of the Post Office at a critical time (2015 – 2022), devoted a stupendous 2 days a month to his role and had a number of other roles. When questioned about this at the Williams Inquiry, he thought that all these other roles benefited his work at the Post Office. If only there were some evidence of this.
Or take Rick Haythornthwaite, now NatWest Chair, who between 2008 and 2016 had a part-time and very well paid role at PetroSaudi, a company involved in a $1.8 billion fraud of Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund, described by Swiss prosecutors as the “scam of the century“. The fraud started around the time he joined and continued for the whole time he was there. He knew nothing about it and expressed his “regret” at his association with the company. As well he might (though his £200,000 p.a. salary and 2 £1 million bonuses will surely have taken the edge off his regret). He worked there 2 and 1/2 days a week. During this time, he also chaired Mastercard (2006 to 2020), Network Rail (2009 to 2012) and FTSE 100 energy company Centrica (2014 to 2019). When did he sleep?
Perhaps rather than wonder why anyone goes into public life if they are asked to take responsibility, the more pertinent questions are what on earth makes people like these think that such vital roles can be done on a part-time basis or how one person can fit so many jobs into the time available and do them with any degree of competence.
Cyclefree