Report comment

I submitted a post yesterday on the Disclosure Problems story, but this one leaves me even more troubled.

I referred yesterday to a recent case in which I had no less than nine Case Management Hearings before the case finally got to Crown Court. The fact is that each was attended by a different prosecutor who, while I have some sympathy for this position, nevertheless trotted out the same excuse that she (they were all ladies) had seen the papers for the first time only that morning, and therefore could not comment on why Orders had not been complied with.

From what I have heard from prosecutors so far since the use of laptops became the norm, the papers available on laptops are seldom as comprehensive as the often cumbersome files that they had been obliged to carry around, and in many cases still do.

Whether the papers are in hard copy or electronic format, the position from what I have seen so far remains precisely the same, and doling out a few more laptops, tablets, and Blackberries (. . . !) is not going to make one iota of difference. When I read the suggestion about the Case Management System at headquarters being automatically updated, I nearly fell off my chair laughing.

To expand however on what Anon at 14:59 said, there are some exceedingly good prosecutors out there, working for pathetic remuneration, and having to cope with this nonsense. It is not them that are at fault, it is the prosecution system as a whole, the administration of which has needed root and branch reform for a long time. Fortunately, many judges have long since ceased to be amused at cases collapsing because of disclosure and other defects on the part of the Crown, and many Crown Counsel will bear witness to having been on the wrong end of scathing comments from Trial Judges in such circumstances.