PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The police are being asked to think how a defence solicitor might view the material, even though they have just charged the defendant and are not legally qualified. The legislation that governs disclosure was passed in 1996 – changing technology has transformed the volume of material in each case as a mobile phone can generate thousands of images and messages that may need to be considered. Police, prosecutors and defence lawyers have too many cases and too little time. Defence barristers (currently taking industrial action over their appalling rates of pay) are not paid for reading through potentially hundreds of pages of unused material to look for evidence that might show their client’s innocence. Where corners have to be cut, this is one of the areas that may slip. There have been multiple reviews of disclosure failings and a Parliamentary committee is looking at it again. Several options have been suggested from giving the defence access to everything (which carries some risks too, to improved training, or creating a new agency to review the material. These cases show that any of us could find ourselves under arrest through a moment’s mistake or a malicious allegation. A properly resourced criminal justice system protects us all."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY: "Met Police chief warns officers could be moved from frontline to tackle rape cases," by Dr. Hanna Quirk, published by Tribune on May 24 2018. (Dr Hannah Quirk is a senior lecturer in criminal law at the University of Manchester);
SUB-HEADING: "Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick claims police officers could have to be moved from frontline duties to tackle the growing crisis associated with disclosure in rape cases," by Dr. Hanna Quirk, published by Tribune on May 24 2018. (Dr Hannah Quirk is a senior lecturer in criminal law at the University of Manchester);
GIST: "Scotland Yard launched a review of 600 sex assault allegations amid fears that scores of investigations could have been tainted by a failure to fully investigate and disclose digital evidence. But Commissioner Dick warned that the extra workload this is placing on her officers means she will have to consider moving resources from other areas of policing. The Commissioner insisted said she took the non-disclosure matter “very seriously” but said the vast amount of material that had to be examined during investigations made the task extremely difficult. She said: “This is something that’s causing I know, the public a lot of concern, not just in London, but beyond. Something I’m taking very seriously indeed. I’d like to say that I’m absolutely clear, my officers do act fairly, they do act impartially. “It is a very, very complicated system that we’re working in and there are ever increasing amounts of digital media that the officers have to look at, particularly in cases where the two parties, as in most serious sexual offences, for example domestic violence, child abuse investigations, know each other, so they have to work their way through a mountain of material and this is becoming more and more difficult. So at one level, yes there is a question about resources.” Commissioner Dick said it was “unthinkable” that an innocent person could be found guilty because relevant evidence had not been identified and disclosed. She said: “What we don’t want are any miscarriages of justice. What we do have is an action plan. “We will have to put some more resources into that, and I have to ensure that my officers are feeling well trained and well supported and where possible, have the best technology that can support them in this work.” Police investigations can generate huge amounts of material, much of it irrelevant. Who gets to see this “unused material” is at the heart of the recent disclosure failures. The police have enormous powers that a defendant does not, such as sealing off a crime scene and conducting house to house inquiries. This difference in powers means that, in the interests of a fair trial, at least some of this potentially valuable information needs to be made available to the defence. At the moment all evidence that the prosecution intends to use at trial is made available to the defence so that they know the detail of the accusation being made and have time to prepare their defence. The nominated disclosure officer is then supposed to list all the remaining material on one of the schedules of unused material. Each item should have a code showing whether it might undermine the prosecution case or support the defence. This can be a bureaucratic chore but it is essential to avoiding miscarriages of justice. The prosecutor then looks at the schedules, can ask to see any item, then decides if the defence should see it or not. This is a disjointed system. The police are being asked to think how a defence solicitor might view the material, even though they have just charged the defendant and are not legally qualified. The legislation that governs disclosure was passed in 1996 – changing technology has transformed the volume of material in each case as a mobile phone can generate thousands of images and messages that may need to be considered. Police, prosecutors and defence lawyers have too many cases and too little time. Defence barristers (currently taking industrial action over their appalling rates of pay) are not paid for reading through potentially hundreds of pages of unused material to look for evidence that might show their client’s innocence. Where corners have to be cut, this is one of the areas that may slip. There have been multiple reviews of disclosure failings and a Parliamentary committee is looking at it again. Several options have been suggested from giving the defence access to everything (which carries some risks too, to improved training, or creating a new agency to review the material. These cases show that any of us could find ourselves under arrest through a moment’s mistake or a malicious allegation. A properly resourced criminal justice system protects us all."
The entire story can be found at:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/964433/metropolitan-police-chief-commissioner-cressida-dick-warning
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c
