National Police Chiefs’ Council Disclosure Portfolio: 22 March 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-police-chiefs-council-disclosure-portfolio-22-march-2024
Introduction
Jonathan Fisher KC, Chair of the Independent Review, summarised the terms of reference and explained the scope of the Review.
Discussion
The discussion covered the following topics:
Redaction
1. The burdens that redaction requirements create for police officers were noted. It was flagged that it can be hard to keep witnesses engaged throughout the process if it is too lengthy, and redaction is often a large contributing factor to the time spent on disclosure.
2. Whilst NPCC are keen to reduce the burdens created by redaction, they also want to ensure the task is being performed correctly. It is important for officers to understand the cases they are working on, and the need for attention to detail is time consuming.
3. NPCC stated that they would like redaction to be less front loaded in the disclosure process. They shared that police officers spend copious amounts of time redacting material before handing it over to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
4. The idea of introducing a ‘data bubble’ between investigators and the CPS was discussed. The bubble would allow law enforcement to share unredacted material with CPS, thus alleviating some of the redaction pressures as redaction would not be required until material is handed over to the court. It was suggested that introducing such a bubble would not require changes to existing legislation. However, it was noted that CPS may feel apprehensive if a bubble were to be introduced, as there is a danger that redaction burdens could simply be shifted onto them.
CPS and Defence Engagement
5. The relationship between police officers and the CPS was discussed. NPCC believe it would be productive for the CPS and police officers to engage with each other earlier on in the disclosure process so that officers can get an idea of charging decisions.
6. The issue of instances where delays occur due to the CPS determining that some unused material is relevant, when officers consider it should not be, was raised. It was noted that this is likely a failure of the police officer to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, rather than a result of disclosure failings. It was stated that pre-charge engagement with defence could be a potential solution for this. NPCC noted that pre-charge engagement is not currently being used to its full potential due to issues with defence payment but it was agreed benefits could be significant.
Relevance
7. NPCC raised rebuttable presumption categories and their definitions. It was stated that the current definitions are too broad, and their refinement could potentially solve multiple issues investigators face when carrying out disclosure requirements. NPCC would welcome a full review of the rebuttable presumption process.
Training
8. It was stated that the importance of how training is delivered is just as important as its content; it is essential that officers are engaged. Virtual versus in-person training and teaching styles to maximise understanding were discussed.
9. NPCC noted that disclosure should not be seen as burdensome by police officers, but rather as a process that ensures every reasonable line of inquiry is followed. The disclosure process is the investigation process, and it should be viewed as such by officers.
Technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI)
10. It was noted that the rollout of frameworks by the Police Digital Service for automated text redaction tools has the potential to significantly help reduce redaction burdens. NPCC could also see value in the introduction of an AI tool when dealing with high volume cases or searching through unused material.
11. NPCC shared concerns about introducing technological tools to help with other steps in the disclosure process, mainly with scheduling regarding volume crime cases. They would not want police officers to take a less thorough approach to disclosure as a result of new tools being introduced, which could create significant risk with respect to the application of the disclosure test.