Transparency data

City of London Police: 10 January 2024

Published 30 April 2024

Introduction

The Chair of the Review, Jonathan Fisher KC, summarised the terms of reference and scope of the Review. He noted the importance of hearing first hand, from investigators, prosecutors, and practitioners, who uphold the disclosure regime.

Discussion

Practitioners were asked to reflect on the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA), specifically part 1 disclosure. The following observations were made.

CPIA

1. Participants were of the view that the legislation itself is not an issue and can be made to work. It was noted that when the CPIA is applied correctly and adhered to, credible cases can be built. However, with regard to disclosure, it was raised that the subjectivity of it is problematic.

2. When reflecting on the relevance test it was raised that the main issue is the subjective nature of the test. Views on ‘relevance’ differ amongst disclosure officers when assessing material and can often come to different views on relevance. This problem is exacerbated if the defence has not yet stated their case.

3. It was recognised that it can be challenging to consider what material is relevant in larger cases with vast digital material, without a defence case statement being issued. It was raised that changes in the defence’s position at a later stage also often create a need for material to be reconsidered.

Technology

4. Participants explained that they currently use the HOLMES system to catalogue all material in a case. It was noted that this is particularly useful in homicide cases due to the volume of material, however, it is not as suitable for fraud offences. In considering solutions, participants were supportive of trying new smart and artificial intelligence (AI) tools.

Resource

5. Participants were of the view that the City of London Police are making the disclosure process work, but it is a significant draw on resources. An example was given of experienced officers being pulled from a live case to assist in overseeing disclosure on another case.

6. It was noted the resource issue is worsened by the challenge of recruiting and retaining staff. Participants raised that it has become harder to find individuals who want to become disclosure leads because of the nature of the role.

7. It was recognised that staff turnover significantly adds to resource challenges, especially in the context of multi-year cases.

Scheduling

8. Participants raised that there is a culture of adding material to schedules to meet Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) standards, observing that there is a notion that the CPS need ‘enough material’ before making a charging decision. This overlooks the purpose of disclosure officer sign off. It was also noted that a significant amount of work, including completing schedules, is now front-loaded and required to be completed before the prosecutor makes a charging decision.

Investigation Scope

9. It was raised that without knowing the defence statement it can be challenging to narrow the investigation’s scope.

Communication

10. It was noted that there are communication issues with some prosecution authorities. Participants flagged that most correspondence now takes place via email which prolongs the time taken to resolve issues that could be discussed quicker at face-to-face or virtual meetings.

Defence Engagement and Pre-charge

11. Participants noted that there is a lack of defence engagement, which frequently reduces the likelihood of receiving an adequate defence case statement at an early stage. It was raised that when a statement is submitted, it usually takes place just before trial which, results in investigators needing more time to go through material.

12. It was noted that there could be more encouragement from the courts as currently there is no incentive for the defence to engage. It was noted that late section 8 requests can derail a case, for no other reason than the amount of resource required to re-review voluminous material.

Keys to the Warehouse

13. When asked to consider whether a ‘keys to the warehouse’ approach would be worth considering, there was a consensus that this would not be desirable. It was noted that this would not benefit the prosecution as they would still need to consider the material in its entirety. In addition to this, participants raised concerns about General Data Protection Regulation issues and associated problems with redaction if this approach were to be adopted.