Metropolitan Police (Lambeth HQ): 23 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/metropolitan-police-lambeth-hq-23-january-2024
These are the personal experiences and views of practitioners and are therefore not necessarily reflected in the organisational wide assessment of disclosure
Introduction
The Chair of the Review, Jonathan Fisher KC, provided a summary of the terms of reference and 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)
1. Participants were asked to consider whether the framework of the CPIA is working and whether challenges are arising with its application. It was widely agreed that the CPIA framework could be made to work.
2. There was a suggestion that the definition of relevance is much too wide and results in officers scheduling more material than is strictly necessary, due to a reluctance to make a decision as to whether material is relevant or not.
Defence Engagement
3. There was overall support for early defence engagement as it is particularly helpful when agreeing search terms and allowing investigators to take an early view. Currently, defence case statements are provided at a very late stage which causes issues at trial relating to the timely disclosure of material. If early engagement was encouraged, the majority of disclosure issues could be resolved significantly in advance of the trial date.
4. It was suggested that the defence often chooses, tactically, not to engage early on therefore, it was suggested that defence case statements should be redefined, and stages for specific engagement should be agreed at the outset. Consequently, if the defence choose not to participate in early engagement, they should not have the opportunity to raise issues once the trial commences without good reason.
Resources and Training
5. Participants agreed that a lack of available training is one of the largest issues they face. It was considered that staff without sufficient training have a tendency to produce poorer quality schedule descriptions, that have to be reviewed and amended by more experienced officers to meet Crown Prosecution Service standards. It was mentioned that Cilex training is available, however, only a limited number of officers have taken the course due to cost constraints and staff turnover.
Technology
6. Participants mentioned that they are experiencing issues with scheduling and reviewing material due to the sheer volume that requires inputting into a spreadsheet through a system ‘Connect’. It was noted that HOLMES is a more user-friendly system for disclosure but is only currently used for homicide cases.
7. It was raised that there have been internal discussions about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and work is underway to evaluate options for AI to assist with redaction.
Courts
8. Participants acknowledged that generally courts are aware of the volume of material involved in an investigation. However, it was noted that in cases where there has been a charge with no disclosure and a court date has been set, issues arise due to the amount of material to assess. It was suggested that courts could do more to take account of resource pressures on investigators when making disclosure-related orders.