CPS guidance on disclosure for profit
Daniel Morgan Panel · The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel · Issued 15 June 2021 · Addressed to: Crown Prosecution Service
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation, Volume 1
It is recommended that the Crown Prosecution Service's additional guidance should be amended to include a requirement that the Prosecutor should consider whether the information was disclosed with a view to one or both parties securing future profit from the use of that material. Moreover, the additional guidance should also be amended to note that the advantage to the parties disclosing the document(s) may not be purely financial but, as in the case of former DCS David Cook and Michael Sullivan, could be reputational and could have improved their employability in the future.
Daniel Morgan Panel, The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel · 15 Jun 2021 Source PDF →
Response — verbatim from government
●Crown Prosecution Service
The CPS has updated its guidance and this was published on 16 February 2022. The guidance sets out a list of non-exhaustive factors to be considered when assessing the overall criminality of a suspect, including their motivation, and now includes confirmation that advantage need not be financial but could include other forms of anticipated personal gain.
Crown Prosecution Service · 22 Jun 2023 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
No published activity has been recorded against this recommendation yet.
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.