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