Inspection of the CPS reveals more disclosure failings

Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Inspectorate (HMCPSI) has today published its latest report on the handling by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) of the disclosure of unused material in the Crown Court.

The report found that although there has been some signs of improvement, including with the completion of disclosure management documents by the police and CPS, and in the timeliness of serving initial and continuing disclosure, the CPS is responsible for a number of disclosure failings, and much more needs to be done.

Since the last inspection in January this year, performance had declined in a number of aspects. These included the service provided by the police to the CPS, and the quality of the prosecutor’s review at charging. Compliance by the CPS with the statutory disclosure regime at the initial and continuing disclosure stages also showed slight a decline from the performance levels in the last report.

Inspectors noted that some of the findings set out in this report were likely to be impacted by the service provided by the police, for example, in cases where the police do not identify what is and is not disclosable. However, the inspection also showed that the rate of CPS feedback to the police had declined since it was looked at in January.

The report highlights a number of issues that were set out previously, inspectors therefore included four recommendations for the CPS:

• that a joint inspection of the handling of disclosure is added to the Criminal Justice Joint Inspection Business Plan for 2021-22;
• that the CPS Areas work with the police on a local level to identify and address deficiencies in file quality;
• that the CPS should develop a clear strategy to improve the quality and standard of pre-charge reviews and case file reviews including the expectation for reviews to consider and address disclosure issues; and
• that the CPS should improve the capability and capacity of legal managers to understand and set clear expectations for disclosure review records and provide clarity of expectations at all stages of review.

 

Commenting on the report, Chief Inspector, Kevin McGinty said:

“Although the CPS has made some improvements, many of the issues highlighted in this report just repeat past concerns.

“Once again there are some clear weaknesses with how the CPS makes effective decisions about the handling and management of disclosure.

“Given this inspection assessed pre-COVID cases and the police and the CPS had secured more resources, it’s disappointing we did not see more of an improvement in casework quality.

“The CPS needs to look at how it can develop a clear focus on quality – and review whether the arrangements it has in place are the right ones.”

 

Note to editors

1. HMCPSI inspects prosecution services, providing evidence to make the prosecution process better and more accountable. We have a statutory duty to inspect the work of the Crown Prosecution Service.
2. The full review can be found here: Disclosure of unused material in the Crown Court – follow-up (1 MB)
3. The cases examined in this inspection were all charged on or after 1 August 2019 and listed for Crown Court up to Friday 20 March 2020.
4. HMCPSI previously published a report on the handling of disclosure in January 2020. That report examined CPS disclosure performance over an 18 month time period and mainly included cases that were completed in 2018 and 2019. The report is linked here:
5. Inspectors examined 20 cases in all 14 CPS Areas, making a total of 280 cases. These ranged from serious sexual offences or child abuse cases to theft and public order cases.
6. The file sample did not contain any rape cases due to the joint Rape inspection with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services that was underway.
7. Disclosure of unused material is a key component of the investigative and prosecution process. When conducting investigations, the police have to retain every item which is not been used as part of the prosecution’s case against the defendant but which is still relevant to an investigation. Each item is then reviewed to see whether it is capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the defence case. If either factor applies it must be disclosed to the defence.