Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee
Recommendation 6
6
Acknowledged
CCRC inappropriately attempted to limit Henley report's broader conclusions on organisational failings.
Conclusion
We accept that it was appropriate for the CCRC to provide feedback to Chris Henley KC on the version of the report that had been shared with them. However, it was inappropriate for the CCRC to suggest to Chris Henley KC that his report should not draw broader conclusions on the CCRC as an organisation and its casework based on his analysis of the CCRC’s handling of Andrew Malkinson’s case. The CCRC’s leadership should have accepted that the gravity of the failings in the handling in the Andrew Malkinson case would lead to concerns that it was highly unlikely to be an isolated example. In fact, the extracts from the CCRC’s letter to Chris Henley KC on 11 March 2024 indicate that the leadership were operating under the misguided assumption that the fallout from the report could be contained if they simply accepted the recommendations and referred to the fact that the findings “were limited to this case”. (Conclusion, Paragraph 36)
Government Response Summary
The government agrees with the committee's conclusion that the CCRC's handling of the Henley report damaged its reputation, citing the previous Chair's resignation. They note that the interim Chair has been tasked with a review, which includes assessing the CCRC's effectiveness, understanding of the ‘real possibility’ test, and quality control of casework, directly addressing concerns about broader lessons from cases.
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
Your report concludes that the public statements of the previous Chair of the CCRC after Andrew Malkinson’s acquittal and lack of timely apology caused damage to the organisation’s reputation. The report draws similar conclusions about the impact of the CCRC’s handling of the report by Chris Henley KC. We agree that the handling of these matters has damaged the reputation of the CCRC in the eyes of the public. One of the reasons the Lord Chancellor referred the previous Chair to the independent panel was that the Chair’s statements about Mr Malkinson’s case and the handling of the Henley report demonstrated a failure to inspire confidence in the role of the CCRC. The panel agreed that these actions amounted to failure to meet the terms of the appointment for the role of Chair. This led to the subsequent resignation of the Chair in January 2025. The Lord Chancellor has now tasked the interim Chair with conducting a review to ensure that the CCRC is able to effectively carry out its role in investigating potential miscarriages of justice. This is an important step in the CCRC earning back the public’s trust. The Terms of Reference for the interim Chair’s review include: Effectiveness: The extent to which the organisation is operating effectively to deliver the CCRC’s statutory responsibilities, including the understanding and application of the ‘real possibility’ test, and the CCRC’s processes for oversight and quality control of casework.