Institutional corruption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Institutional corruption is a phenomenon in public bodies that has been defined by the UK Independent Inquiry into the Murder of Daniel Morgan as placing the protection of reputation above fidelity to the truth, especially in the context of an independent or public inquiry.

The Independent Inquiry into the Murder of Daniel Morgan report found that the Metropolitan Police were "institutionally corrupt" in its handling of the investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan and that the force had placed protecting its reputation above the investigation.[1][2][3][4]

Institutional corruption is differentiated from racism or corruption by the institution's willingness to frustrate or slow the work of independent formal inquiries,[5] even after official reports and documentation recognise that such an inquiry is necessary.[6]

Institutional corruption is not limited to national scale institutions. It can be as small as a single recommendation of a report rejected[7] because an institution wishes not to admit meaningful change,[8] or the misreporting of statistics in the Stafford Hospital scandal.[9]


United Kingdom[edit]




  1. ^ Vikram Dodd; Dan Sabbagh (15 June 2021). "Daniel Morgan murder: inquiry brands Met police 'institutionally corrupt'". The Guardian.
  2. ^ "A panel finds that London's police are "institutionally corrupt"". The Economist. 19 June 2021.
  3. ^ "Is the Metropolitan Police institutionally corrupt". Financial Times. 25 July 2021 – via YouTube.
  4. ^ Lizzie Dearaden (15 June 2021). "Daniel Morgan: Met Police 'institutionally corrupt,' report into private detective's murder says". The Independent. Retrieved 15 June 2021.
  5. ^ "Daniel Morgan: Cressida Dick denies institutional corruption". BBC News Online. 16 June 2021. Retrieved 26 September 2021.
  6. ^ Rafi Mauro-Benady (15 June 2021). "Met Police top cop censured for obstructing Daniel Morgan murder inquiry". Retrieved 25 August 2021.
  7. ^ @journo_kituno (9 July 2021). "The review came back with 39 recommendations.

    Most of them were accepted, implemented or noted, except for one, which was for LGT to "produce a statement which capture[d], in an easy format document, as to what has changed.""
    (Tweet). Retrieved 26 September 2021 – via Twitter.
  8. ^ See, for example, Recommendation 26 from: Trust Board Meeting, Tuesday 29th June 2021, 9.30am (Part 1) (Report). Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust. p. 47. Retrieved 25 August 2021. 26. The Trust to produce a statement that captures in an easy format document as to what has changed in relation to charging so that members of the public can see quickly those positive changes.
    Recommendation not accepted: Whilst the Trust is not planning to develop the statement as recommended by the panel, the Trust is committed to the learning enabled by the work of the panel...
  9. ^ Robert Francis QC (February 2013). Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry: Executive Summary (PDF) (Report). The Stationery Office. p. 41. Retrieved 25 August 2021. During the course of both the first inquiry and the present there has been a constant refrain from those charged with managing, leading, overseeing or regulating the Trust's provision of services that no cause for concern was drawn to their attention, or that no one spoke up about concerns.