Issue 171  5th December 2020

The Attorney General’s revised Guidelines on Disclosure will come into force on 31 December 2020.

Where it is expected that the accused will maintain a not guilty plea, it is encouraged as a matter of best practice for initial disclosure to be served prior to the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH)...

In cases heard in the magistrates’ court and the youth court, prosecutors should always consider whether or not a disclosure management document (DMD) would be beneficial... DMDs should be prepared in all Crown Court cases...

Pre-charge engagement in these guidelines refers to voluntary engagement between the parties to an investigation after the first PACE interview, and before any suspect has been formally charged. Pre-charge engagement is a voluntary process and it may be terminated at any time. It does not refer to engagement between the parties to an investigation by way of further PACE interviews, and none of the guidance in this Annex is intended to apply to such circumstances. Should a defendant choose not to engage at this stage, that decision should not be held against him at a later stage in the proceedings...

In January, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate said the CPS’s disclosure of evidence was still sub-standard despite early signs of improvement. In a follow-up report published today, inspectors said there was evidence of improvement in some aspects of performance since the January review ‘but also of slight deterioration in some aspects’...

The report says: ‘This inspection shows that on a number of measures, the prosecution team partnership is under strain. The police’s compliance with the requirements is deteriorating, the CPS’s feedback has decreased, and this culminates in weaker management and handling of disclosure material. The result is a less efficient system; given the impact of the coronavirus, the last thing the criminal justice system can afford is more delays and inefficiency caused by rework.’

Extended operating hours are ‘misunderstood’, the lord chief justice has said as the government consults on widening the controversial model to more courts... He said: ‘What extended operating hours is looking at is to run essentially two courts in one courtroom in one day that lasts longer. So, in the Crown Court... two trials in the same day are heard in the same court, so one judge with one set of lawyers starts a trial at 9.30am in the morning and finishes at lunchtime, effectively, after four hours. The court is then cleaned and then the second trial starts after lunch for four hours...

The Criminal Bar Association warned it will 'take action' if Covid operating hours are introduced to more Crown courts. The association has written to acting HMCTS chief executive Kevin Sadler. The letter, published today, says: 'If [the scheme's] introduction follows the process that it appears HMCTS intend to follow, then its introduction will be in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty and in breach of HMCTS's public law consultation guidelines. 'The scheme, as presently anticipated, will operate in a way that is discriminatory as against women, some religious minorities, some groups of disabled people, and junior black barristers and barristers from other minority ethnic groups.'

The criminal offence of misconduct in public office may be committed by a public office holder who, while acting as a public office holder, wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty or wilfully misconducts him or herself, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in that office...

In Chapter 3 we recommend that two statutory offences should replace the common law offence of misconduct in public office. The current offence criminalises conduct which can be broadly split into two categories: (1) corruption in public office; and (2) breach of a duty in public office. The two strands of conduct therefore share the same fault element, despite involving different forms of wrongdoing. We recommend the separation of these two strands into separate offences...