Metropolitan Police: 27 February 2024
Published 30 April 2024
© Crown copyright 2024
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-disclosure-and-fraud-offences-meeting-minutes/metropolitan-police-27-february-2024
Introduction
The Chair of the Review, Jonathan Fisher KC, summarised the terms of reference and explained the scope of the Review and outlined emerging findings.
Discussion
Disclosure and Early Pleas
1. It was raised that the police dedicate a significant amount of time undertaking disclosure-related activities which, for cases where a guilty plea is anticipated, could be considered a less efficient use of resource. It was agreed that the accused must be made aware of all the material facts of the case before entering a guilty plea. It was suggested that the relevancy test, given its breadth, is often regarded as a subjective test. Participants felt that disclosure in the Magistrates is not working as intended.
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
2. It was considered that AI has the potential to assist the disclosure process, but the obligations set out in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) including prosecution disclosure and defence case statement timelines should remain. It was also suggested that the creation of some form of reasonableness test, regarding the Court’s consideration of CPIA section 8 applications, would be helpful.
Training
3. It was considered that there is insufficient investment in disclosure training. There was a discussion of the lessons learned from the R v Allen [2018] and the way that it highlighted a lack of understanding of disclosure obligations.
4. Fraud cases are more likely to have experienced disclosure officers as part of the team whereas lower-level offences are more likely to have a single less experienced investigating officer who is also performing disclosure related functions.
5. It was highlighted that officers derive the most benefit from practical training on disclosure. It was also considered that the format in which training is delivered has an impact on the ability of participants to retain what is taught. The Metropolitan Police has offered mandatory disclosure workshops, which also cover the operation of the wider criminal justice system. The force is also considering what other options might be available, including working with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and defence practitioners to improve disclosure training. Given the size of the workforce, delivering disclosure learning for all Metropolitan Police officers would be a significant programme of work.
Communication with CPS
6. It was noted that improvements could be made in the way the Police and the CPS communicate on disclosure issues and in particular the handling of digital material. The pace of engagement can sometimes be a contributing factor to delays.