4
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Rejected
The Committee does not understand why the CCRC would consider itself bound by the government’s General Election guidance. 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applicable, we do not understand why applying that guidance would lead to the conclusion that the report should not be published, given that this was …
Read more
The Committee does not understand why the CCRC would consider itself bound by the government’s General Election guidance. 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applicable, we do not understand why applying that guidance would lead to the conclusion that the report should not be published, given that this was not a party-political issue. The report was concerned with the CCRC’s approach to Andrew Malkinson’s applications, not with government decision-making. We accept that after the General Election was called on 22 May 2024, the CCRC might have decided to check with the Ministry of Justice whether the Henley report could be published. However, we were not convinced by Karen Kneller and 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. (Conclusion, Paragraph 25)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the committee's view, asserting that the CCRC, as an NDPB, was bound by the General Election guidance. The Ministry of Justice, with agreement from the Cabinet Office, concluded that publishing the Henley report during the pre-election period would have been contrary to …
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
28
Conclusion
3rd Report - Leadership of the Criminal…
Rejected
We are concerned about the CCRC’s independence and its relationship with the Ministry of Justice. Independence requires the chair and senior leadership to prioritise and defend the interests and constitutional functions of the institution above all. In practice, this does not appear to be happening. This is demonstrated by the …
Read more
We are concerned about the CCRC’s independence and its relationship with the Ministry of Justice. Independence requires the chair and senior leadership to prioritise and defend the interests and constitutional functions of the institution above all. In practice, this does not appear to be happening. This is demonstrated by the decision to delay the publication of the report by Chris Henley KC into the CCRC’s handling of the Andrew Malkinson case due to the pre-election period. (Conclusion, Paragraph 87)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explains and defends the delay in publishing the Henley report, stating it adhered to pre-election guidance for NDPBs. It asserts that its relationship with the CCRC is based on the Cabinet Office's Arm's Length Body Sponsorship Code of Good Practice, effectively refuting the …
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice