National Crime Agency: 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/national-crime-agency-23-january-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
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA)
1. It was suggested that the CPIA in its current format does not work and the legislation should be looked at, as implementing other changes may not be enough to bring about significant improvement.
2. During the discussion it was also noted that the current definition of relevance is too wide, thus the scope of the definition should be assessed to test whether there is the possibility to narrow it. It was also suggested that the definition of proportionality and reasonable lines of inquiry should also be reviewed.
Digital Material
3. There was concern about the growing volume of digital material for the average case, which continues to increase. It was acknowledged that if changes are not made to reduce the volume of material, law enforcement may not be able to take on as many cases.
Resource and Training
4. It was noted that with the current resourcing levels there is a risk that there will not be sufficient staff to cope with the increasing amount of material on each case. Consequently, fewer cases will be able to be investigated and processed.
5. It was recognised that training needs to be improved across the entire law enforcement landscape.
Early Engagement
6. There was support for better pre-change engagement. However, it was noted that law enforcement would still feel the pressure of having to undertake reviewing, scheduling, and redacting before the defence engagement begins.
Technology
7. It was agreed that technology and artificial intelligence (AI) is important, and that law enforcement must look towards improving technology. There was an awareness that law enforcement is generally slow to take up new technological solutions, including AI.
Courts
8. It was recognised that ultimately no part of the court has a responsibility or bears consequences for the resources required to undertake disclosure. Therefore, a risk-averse court decision incurs significant public spending and heavy use of law enforcement resource.
Keys to the Warehouse
9. Discussion around the possibility of introducing a ‘keys to the warehouse’ approach noted that the benefits could be considered, however, there was an overall view that this may not be practical for the majority of criminal cases.