Home / Inquiries / Daniel Morgan Panel / DM-20
← DM-19 DM-21 →
DM-20

HOLMES access for independent panels

Daniel Morgan Panel · The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel · Issued 15 June 2021 · Addressed to: Home Office

Government responseHome Office: Accepted (Jun 2023)

DeliveryNo statement from Home Office found

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation, Volume 1

All independent panels and inquiries examining police investigations should be given full access to the associated HOLMES accounts at their secure premises when they begin their work.

Daniel Morgan Panel, The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel · 15 Jun 2021 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

AI-generated evidence summary

The Panel recommended giving independent panels full access to police HOLMES accounts at their own premises. In June 2023, the Home Office agreed that future panels should access relevant material at their own premises where security allows, stating that cloud-based HOLMES databases permit access via corporately managed devices for cleared personnel (Home Office response, Jun 2023). In March 2022, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services found that granting database access should never have been in doubt and that relying on hard-copy availability did not stand scrutiny (HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, Mar 2022). The record holds nothing dated later than the response of June 2023 (Home Office response, Jun 2023).

AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 5 Oct 2026.

About this summary
This recommendation applies across many organisations. The record above reflects central policy activity; adoption in individual organisations may vary.

Government response

●Home Office · Accepted · 15 Jun 2023

Words of: Home Office, Government response to the report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel (CP 857), presented to Parliament by the Home Secretary, 15 June 2023

2.3.14. The Panel was critical of the stance taken by the MPS as to practical access arrangements for sensitive material. There were – in addition – several issues with the Panel’s access to the MPS’s HOLMES database. The government agrees with the Panel that organisations which make commitments to disclose material to non-statutory inquiries or panels should do so in a timely manner, and that all efforts should be made to ensure that future panels and non-statutory inquiries are able to access relevant material at a convenient location, including at their own premises where security requirements allow. Since 2020, police HOLMES databases have become Cloud-based, making the system accessible for the first time via a corporately managed device for those with the appropriate security clearance and purpose.

Extract from: Government response to the report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel

Site note: The response is arranged by theme and does not name this recommendation. This is paragraph 2.3.14, in its section "Working with inquiries", given once; the same words are recorded on recommendations 19, 20 and 22.

Delivery

No statement on delivery from Home Office has been found in the sources searched. This is separate from the response above.

What other bodies have found

In their own words. These do not change the delivery statement above.

●HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services · 22 Mar 2022

There should never have been any doubt about allowing the DMIP access to the HOLMES database. Any argument that access wasn’t necessary because all material was available in hard copy doesn’t stand scrutiny.

From: An inspection of the Metropolitan Police Service's counter-corruption arrangements and other matters related to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel

How this page is built

The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.