Regional Organised Crime Unit (ROCU) investigators: 20 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/regional-organised-crime-unit-rocu-investigators-20-march-2024
These are the personal experiences and views of the investigators interviewed.
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
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA)
1. Participants were asked to reflect on the CPIA. There was consensus that the legislation is workable, however, it was noted that issues arise when the Act is applied inconsistently.
Technology
2. Participants were of the view that the current technological infrastructure available to forces and units varies in quality. Therefore, forces tend to find investigation and disclosure tools that best work for certain crime types. However, issues arise when different case management systems are used across policing and as a result file sharing may be challenging due to lack of interoperability.
Early Engagement
3. It was agreed that pre-charge engagement, as set out in the Attorney General’s Guidelines, was beneficial and should be implemented more regularly. It was noted that in complex cases the defence should engage more proactively.
4. However, it was raised that there are often blockers that prevent early engagement. Participants highlighted that prosecuting authorities often do not engage until the full complement of disclosure files have been completed, including redaction and schedules. This has a significant impact on strategies and timelines.
5. It was also noted that a lack of pre-charge advice is exacerbated when prosecuting authorities have a volume of cases to deal with as they do not have time to effectively engage. Consequently, this results in defensive disclosure and a number of hours spent trying to meet high standards for redaction and scheduling before a conversation can be had regarding what a charging decision might look like.
Resource
6. Resourcing was identified as an issue, with members noting that the low staff numbers could result in a lower quality of disclosure. Consequently, there is a significant demand for police officers.
7. Participants explained that the level of resources required to undertake disclosure is often not considered at the outset of an investigation, but participants were of the view that proper resourcing and an early disclosure strategy would mean that officers were less likely to be overburdened.
Attorney General’s Guidelines
8. It was raised that police officers are aware of the Attorney General’s Guidelines, which are consulted often. It was noted that officers rarely hear internal communications regarding further disclosure training opportunities.