Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee
Recommendation 9
9
Accepted
CCRC wrongly dismissed systemic implications of Henley report findings, damaging public confidence.
Conclusion
In our view, Chris Henley KC’s assessment of the work done by the CCRC was damning. It is true of course that the review focused only on one case, but it is also clear beyond doubt that Chris Henley KC’s conclusions have significant implications for the CCRC’s overall approach to its casework. The mistakes made in relation to Andrew Malkinson’s application should have been taken as evidence of systemic problems within the CCRC. It was therefore wrong for the CCRC to repeatedly emphasise that Chris Henley KC’s report was “necessarily limited” to one case. The CCRC stated that they accepted all of Chris Henley KC’s recommendations, which we welcome. However, we are unconvinced that the CCRC has taken on board the strength of his overall conclusions about the quality of the CCRC’s work on Andrew Malkinson’s applications. Those findings have significantly damaged public confidence in the CCRC’s approach to its work. The CCRC’s response should have reflected the severity of Chris Henley KC’s conclusions. (Conclusion, Paragraph 39) Leadership
Government Response Summary
The government agrees the handling of the report damaged the CCRC's reputation and confirms the Lord Chancellor has tasked the interim Chair with a review. This review includes assessing the CCRC's effectiveness in delivering its statutory responsibilities, including its understanding of the 'real possibility' test and quality control of casework.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
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.