header-logo header-logo

Disclosure recommendations for data-heavy cases

An ‘intensive disclosure regime’ should be put in place to help judges manage data-heavy cases, according to the chair of the Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences, Jonathan Fisher KC.

Under this regime, once a case is designated ‘intensive’, the prosecution would provide the court with an updated disclosure management document including full details of any search technology they plan to use. The defence would identify trial issues, and the judge would hold a disclosure management hearing about four weeks later.

The report, 'Disclosure in the digital age', published by the Home Office last week, also recommends standardised training for disclosure officers, greater use of artificial intelligence (AI) and early-stage communication between investigators and prosecutors to identify a disclosure strategy.

Fisher KC considers the approach used in some US states where the defence is given full (albeit controlled) access to prosecution material, but rejects this as expensive and likely to increase delays.

The explosion in digital material is overwhelming criminal justice resources—Fisher KC cites a recent serious fraud case that generated 8.5 million documents plus a further 2.5 million defence documents. The largest Serious Fraud Office (SFO) case to date has 48 million documents.

Fisher KC, of Red Lion Chambers, writes: ‘If printed, the volume of material in an average SFO case would stack considerably higher than the Shard.’

The proliferation of data also affects less complex cases. The silk reports it took an average of 60 days to bring a case to court in 2014 and double that time in 2023.

While the relevant legislation—the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996—is ‘broadly sound’, problems do arise in its practical application. Therefore, Fisher KC recommends creating additional guidance and updating the Act to reflect recent caselaw.

Niall Hearty, partner at Rahman Ravelli, says: ‘Particularly notable is Fisher’s rejection of the keys to the warehouse idea—that suspects should have all the evidence.

‘While this is understandable, it may come as a disappointment to some defence lawyers. Equally notable is his recommendation that language should be inserted into the law that allows disclosure officers to use AI. This is perhaps the clearest acknowledgement of the challenges the system currently faces when it comes to disclosure.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll