His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI): 31 January 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/his-majestys-crown-prosecution-service-inspectorate-hmcpsi-31-january-2024
Introduction
The Chair of the Review, Jonathan Fisher KC, summarised the terms of reference and explained the scope of the Review, followed by an outline of his engagement approach. Interlocutors were asked to reflect on the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA), specifically on disclosure. The following observations were made.
Discussion
CPIA
1. The discussion began with reflections on the operation and structure of the CPIA and how it is applied in today’s digital age. Participants agreed that the CPIA framework can be made to work in practice and that the legislation itself is not overly complicated. However, it was noted that the application of the legislation is sometimes inadequate, most notably in cases with a large volume of digital material.
Resource and Training
2. Participants observed that disclosure officers are often not provided with adequate training. As a result, there is a lack of understanding of the complexity of the disclosure regime, which is exacerbated in larger cases, causing disclosure to be overlooked. In an attempt to improve this, the Public Sector Fraud Authority (PSFA) are drawing up a set of standards for disclosure officers.
3. It was explained that the role of the disclosure officer is considered unattractive due to low pay, lack of development opportunities and concerns around personal accountability for disclosure failings. The role requires an increased level of incentivisation to undertake it.
Defence Engagement
4. Participants welcomed the idea of early defence engagement. However, it was noted that the defence often wait until they understand more about a case before engaging. As a result, engagement often happens at a later stage as there are no penalties imposed for doing so. It was noted that with most defence teams, legal professional privilege engagement is often swift, whereas disclosure engagement is left until later.
5. Participants had witnessed good evidence of law enforcement attempting to engage with the defence, however, this is often met with little to no success. They explained that there is a desire for increased judicial support to manage this.
Magistrates’ Court
6. Participants noted that in a 2017 inspection, it was observed that 30-35 percent of cases are not adhering to disclosure standards in the Magistrates Court[footnote 1]. It was explained that data on disclosure failings is available and broken down by Magistrates’ Court, Crown Court and rape and serious sexual offences cases[footnote 2].
Key to the Warehouse Approach
7. When asked to consider the feasibility of adopting a ‘keys to the warehouse’ approach, participants considered it to be quite radical. However, they considered that a possible solution could be to take a ‘keys to the cabinet in the warehouse’ approach meaning that certain types of material could be disclosed in its entirety. Potential benefits to this approach were also recognised as it could assist cases being completed in shorter timescales.