President of London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association: 8 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/president-of-london-criminal-courts-solicitors-association-8-february-2024
Introduction
The Chair of the Review, Jonathan Fisher KC, summarised the terms of reference and explained the scope of the Review. He highlighted the importance of hearing first hand, from investigators, prosecutors, and practitioners, who operate the disclosure regime.
Discussion
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) and Disclosure
1. Regarding the CPIA, there was a consensus that the framework was adequate, and that the relevancy test was easy to understand and sets out that investigations need to be conducted impartially. The issue of concern was that the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) do not place enough emphasis on the importance of disclosure. Another issue of concern is the fact that many Police officers are inexperienced and do not properly understand the importance of disclosure, therefore they need to be properly trained.
2. It was suggested that Police tend to only disclose enough information to justify a charging decision, which may not always give the full picture of a case. Full disclosure should be made at the first appearance in the magistrates’ court, particularly in bail cases. It was also suggested that if the Police responded to requests from the defence for disclosure pre-charge, this might lead to more cases being diverted from prosecution and assist with reducing the backlog.
Communication between CPS and Police
3. Regarding rape and serious sexual offences (RASSO) cases, it was noted that delays to case progression are more attributable to Police and CPS resourcing than any specific failure in the disclosure process. The process may be improved if Police are clear from the outset about the lines of inquiry that they intend to follow.
4. The CPS and the Police have an early engagement meeting on RASSO cases however too often the Police delay requesting that meeting and then have to wait a long time for it to take place. When the meeting does take place, the discussion sometimes focuses only on obvious lines of inquiry which should have been undertaken from the outset, rather than discussing more complex ones early enough which can lead to unnecessary delays. It was noted that the Better Case Management system tends to only require disclosure at stages 3 and 4 – after the prosecution has sight of the defence statement.