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)