Review archiving processes for historic material
Daniel Morgan Panel · The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel · Issued 15 June 2021 · Addressed to: Home Office
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation, Volume 1
In order to avoid most of the delays and difficulties inherent in this case, and in so many other unsolved cases, there is a need for a review of the processes for archiving historic material with a view to creating a system which can produce national and local documents as required.
Daniel Morgan Panel, The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel · 15 Jun 2021 Source PDF →
Response — verbatim from government
●Home Office
The current Home Secretary will subsequently approve a new Code of Practice on Police Information and Records Management to replace the existing Code of Practice on Management of Police Information 2005, and it will soon be laid before Parliament. The purpose of this Code is to help improve how records are managed and to provide a framework to support a cohesive, ethical, effective, legitimate and efficient approach to information and records management, maximising the opportunities and benefits that good information and records management provides. The new Code of Practice, together with a new, complementary APP on 'Archiving of records in the public interest', will set guidance for preserving records where there is a public interest, as well as setting out advice on how appropriate types of records should be managed to prevent obsolescence.
Home Office · 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.