Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee
Recommendation 4
4
Rejected
CCRC leadership unnecessarily delayed report publication based on misunderstood election guidance.
Conclusion
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applicable, we do not understand why applying that guidance would lead to the conclusion that the report should not be published, given that this was not a party-political issue.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)
Government Response 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 the guidance's principles.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
Your report questions whether the CCRC should have felt itself bound by the Government’s ‘General election guidance for civil servants’2 when considering publication of the Henley report. As you have rightly noted, the general principles and conventions set out in the guidance apply to the CCRC as an NDPB. While ultimately the guidance is clear that ‘decisions on individual matters are for the bodies concerned in consultation with their sponsor department’, publishing the Henley report during the pre-election period would have been contrary to the principle that ‘NDPB activity should not be seen to compete with the election campaign for public attention.’ One of the considerations for sponsor departments under the guidance is whether ‘proposed activities could reflect adversely on the work or reputation of the NDPB’. 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 and reasoning on this matter.