Met police firearms

[Fedster + 1,307]

CPS may have underestimated number of cases stopped because of disclosure errors by 90 per cent.

Alison Saunders 'did not sufficiently recognise extent' of failures

 

Long-term failures in the disclosure of evidence have gone unresolved because of insufficient focus and leadership, a report claims.

MPs have criticised the director of public prosecutions over the long-term failings that saw vital evidence withheld from defence lawyers in rape and serious sexual assault cases.

The Justice Committee says continued problems went unresolved while Alison Saunders "did not sufficiently recognise the extent and seriousness" of failures within the disclosure process.

Its report, published today, also concludes the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) may have underestimated the number of cases stopped because of disclosure errors by 90 per cent.

Committee chairman Bob Neill said correct disclosure of evidence by the police and CPS is too often seen as an "administrative headache".

"This is not acceptable," said the barrister and Tory MP.

"As we've seen in high profile cases since last year - disclosure failings are extremely damaging for those concerned and can have a permanent life-long impact.

"These failings have caused miscarriages of justice and - as the director of public prosecutions even admitted to us - some people have gone to prison as a result."

Confidence in the criminal justice system was rocked last year after a flurry of cases collapsed when it emerged that vital evidence had not been passed to defence lawyers.

The collapsed rape trial of Liam Allan raised the profile of a string of similar sex cases, where charges were dropped when critical material emerged at the last minute.

The revelations prompted a review of every live rape and serious sexual assault prosecution in England and Wales, which found issues with the disclosure of unused material in 47 cases.

The Justice Committee found failings arose in the "application of disclosure by police officers and prosecutors on the ground" and recommended a shift in culture towards viewing the process as a "core justice duty" rather than an "administrative add-on".

Its report said the government must consider whether funding is sufficient, with delayed or collapsed trials putting a further strain on tight resources.

The Attorney General is conducting a review of disclosure, while a raft of measures are being brought in, including a National Disclosure  Improvement Plan.

Mr Neill said: "The proliferation of electronic evidence makes disclosure ever more challenging, and we need the right skills, technology, resources and guidelines, to resolve this once and for all.

"The failings are symptomatic of a system under immense strain: without change, we cannot expect the public to have confidence in the criminal justice system.

"We welcome the National Disclosure Improvement Plan, and particularly the commitment of senior police officers we spoke to, and we look forward to reading the Attorney General's review, but these must deliver much needed improvement.

"There have been too many reviews of disclosure that have not resulted in real change."

Responding to the report, Ms Saunders said: "I have been very clear that addressing the long-standing problems in managing disclosure  across the criminal justice system is my top priority.

"There is an unprecedented focus on finding solutions, and extensive action has been under way over the past year to bring about the necessary change not just in how cases are handled, but in the wider culture within the CPS and policing.

"The National Disclosure Improvement Plan, published jointly with the police in January, is already having a positive effect.

"This is not a quick fix. We will evaluate the measures taken, and agree further commitments to ensure there is continuous improvement.

"We will consider carefully the findings and recommendations of the Justice Select Committee."

The National Police Chiefs' Council's lead for criminal justice Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave added: "We have found the Director of Public Prosecutions to be fully aware of the extent and seriousness of the disclosure failures and fully committed to working with us to drive the changes that are needed across the whole system."

Chief Constable Mike Cunningham, CEO of the College of Policing, said: “The legitimacy of our criminal justice system relies on it being fair and even-handed. The public rightly expect to see the guilty convicted, but it is equally important to avoid the wrongful conviction of the innocent.

“We have been working with partners to address failures in disclosure since summer 2017 and together we have put in place a plan for change which we are pleased to see the Justice Committee has welcomed.

“The College has created new disclosure training and standards for officers and police forces across England and Wales and there are now specific disclosure officers in both frontline and senior ranks in every force who can give the right advice to colleagues.

“Today’s helpful report is being carefully considered to understand what more can be done to improve disclosure so that we can continue protecting the public and bringing offenders to justice.”

View On Police Oracle

[Billy Blue Tac 170]

There is more to this than just poor leadership IMHO.

Sure, everyone is overworked and under pressure to hit targets and things like direction, setting priorities and especially allocating resources must come from the top. We have to re-qualify for absolutely everything (driving, firearms, JRFT, OST, first aid, surveillance, public order... The list goes on: I even have to do an annual H&S e-learning package that hasn't changed since Pontius was an Air Cadet) but if Disclosure is that important, then where's the funding and time to do proper CPD that's more than just clicking next on NCALT?

But it's also a cultural and attitude problem cross-cutting all ranks and roles. You mention you're a Disclosure Officer to anyone in the job and I bet nine times out of ten they'll roll their eyes and say something like "rather you than me" or "good luck with that!"

What we need is a change in attitude: contrary to popular belief our job is not to put villains in jail - our job is to gather evidence so the courts can put villains in jail after a fair trial.

Disclosure is the way we - Regs, Specials, PCSOs, civilian staff, CPS and even the defence - can ensure that fair trial.  "Truth not Proof" I call it.

We all have a legal duty to ensure fair Disclosure, so ask yourself this: when was the last time to actually considered the Relevancy Test? Do you even know what the Relevancy Test is? Or when was the last time you read the CPIA Code of Practice or AG Guidelines on Disclosure?

 

 

Edited July 22, 2018 by Billy Blue Tac

[Ether + 1,401]

It’s not just leadership that’s the issue, many officers pay lip service to CPIA, be that through ignorance to its importance or through a lack of understanding. 

CPIA is too protracted and is an administration burden, so I can see why mistakes are made.

[Billy Blue Tac 170]

28 minutes ago, Funkywingnut said:

It’s not just leadership that’s the issue, many officers pay lip service to CPIA, be that through ignorance to its importance or through a lack of understanding. 

CPIA is too protracted and is an administration burden, so I can see why mistakes are made.

Exactly.

It's everyone's responsibility to learn the legal requirements of the job to counter claims of ignorance and lack of understanding.

And it's the bosses' job to give us the tools to ease the administrative burden - especially extra troops, time, proper IT and recognition that the Disclosure process starts one day 1 and is more than just scheduling reams of paper.

[SimonT + 1,185]

I have a reasonable understanding of disclosure, after putting a lot effort into working it out. The guidance on how it actually works is not good enough. 

I recently put together a full file for a very straightforward job. Hours of work, emails, checks and ballance. When we are barely covering our emergency calls and the demand never stops, how can I get that done. And more importantly how can I get it done properly. 

No I can't come to that domestic assault, I'm doing paperwork. How do you ballance that? You have to get the paperwork done, if you don't you fail the last victim. But how do you fail the next victim in favour of the last?

Fundamentally we need more staff to do both. 

[Ether + 1,401]

7 hours ago, SimonT said:

I have a reasonable understanding of disclosure, after putting a lot effort into working it out. The guidance on how it actually works is not good enough. 

I recently put together a full file for a very straightforward job. Hours of work, emails, checks and ballance. When we are barely covering our emergency calls and the demand never stops, how can I get that done. And more importantly how can I get it done properly. 

No I can't come to that domestic assault, I'm doing paperwork. How do you ballance that? You have to get the paperwork done, if you don't you fail the last victim. But how do you fail the next victim in favour of the last?

Fundamentally we need more staff to do both. 

Disclosure schedules can be done by someone other than the investigating officer. 

There needs to be a better system for management, storage and distribution of investigation material. We still have teams of paper going to different legal teams, in fact I find myself faxing stuff!!!! This is not 1970.