header-logo header-logo

Proper disclosure requires payment

21 November 2018
Issue: 7818 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Criminal justice review reveals critical lack of compliance

The government has promised to take a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to disclosure in the criminal justice system, after its own review uncovered systematic failings.

The ‘Review of the efficiency and effectiveness of disclosure in the criminal justice system’ was commissioned in December 2017 and coincided with the collapse of several high-profile prosecutions due to disclosure of evidence issues, notably the Liam Allan case. It found the duty to record, retain and review material collected was not routinely complied with by police and prosecutors and this was causing, at the least, costly delays and at worst meant cases were being pursued without sufficient evidence.

Disclosure is the process by which the accused is provided with investigation materials that could undermine the prosecution case against them or assist their defence.

Publishing the 78-page review this week, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC MP said: ‘For too long, disclosure has been seen as an administrative add on rather than fundamental pillar of our justice system. This ends now.’

The review recommends incentivising early preparation and engagement between prosecution and defence, and reviewing the current level of criminal legal aid payments.

Andrew Walker QC, chair of the Bar, said: ‘The review recognises that changes will need to be made to the criminal legal aid fee schemes if early preparation and engagement is to happen, and be effective. 

‘Fees for that work, at proper rates, will be essential. But this will also require the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to be funded properly, so that it can employ the necessary staff. We note the absence of any such recommendation.’

According to Bar Council research, CPS funding has fallen 34% in real terms in the past ten years.

Law Society president Christina Blacklaws welcomed the review’s acknowledgement that ‘the current fee structure for police station attendance is not designed for a large amount of pre-charge work by the defence’.

Issue: 7818 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll