Transparency data

Serious Fraud Office: 15 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/serious-fraud-office-15-february-2024

Introduction

The Chair of the Review, Jonathan Fisher KC, summarised the terms of reference and explained the scope of the Review. He outlined the themes emerging from the Review’s engagement.

Discussion

Relevance

1. It was recognised that the definition of relevance is of key importance, however it is too wide, and it would be beneficial to explore ways in which it could be narrowed.

Keys to the Warehouse

2. It was noted that a ‘keys to the warehouse approach’ could initially be an attractive proposition as it appears to resolve issues around access to material. However, it was recognised that in practice it may create new problems if the prosecution is still required to consider all material that will help the investigation. To follow all reasonable lines of enquiry will, for SFO cases, result in a significant amount of material being reviewed.

Technology

3. There was an agreement that there is significant potential for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to speed up processes to save significant amounts of time when reviewing documents, in comparison to the speed and accuracy of a human.

4. It was noted that software solutions can be used to apply search terms and review documents at speed. Supported by a human reviewer, a machine learning tool can be utilised to prioritise and order documents that are more likely to include undermine or assist material[footnote 1]. A disclosure officer can then reviews all material in the reprioritised order, meaning that humans remain the key decision-makers throughout. It was suggested that in the future, such tools could reduce the disclosure burden.

Redaction

5. It was noted that redaction is a significant burden. It was noted that, under certain circumstances, courts could be given more discretion to be able to allow the prosecution to hand over unredacted material to the defence, should it be in all parties’ interest.

6. It was acknowledged that such an approach could work for fraud cases but would be less appropriate in rape and serious sexual offences cases. Therefore, it was suggested that there could be a differentiation between personal information and sensitive information to allow personal information to be shared but not sensitive information.

  1. CPIA Section 3(1) CPIA. The ‘disclosure test’ requires a prosecutor to disclose to the defence “any prosecution material … which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or assisting the case for the accused”. ↩

Back to top