Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
We recommend that investigations by the Directorate of Professional
Standards should be run along the lines of the normal investigative process
for criminal cases and arrangements should be made to put the necessary
systems in place as a matter of urgency.
Disclosure – “A smokescreen goes up in order to prevent you getting to the information”
7.116 A number of witnesses have criticised the way in which DPS handles requests
for disclosure of material. These criticisms largely revolve around the denial of
material requested and what is seen as a very slow response to requests.
“On the 17th June [redacted], a pre-hearing conference was held with DPS at Tintagel House.
At this hearing, my police federation representative handed over a disclosure request for a
number of documents that had been prepared by my barrister. On the 25th June, my solicitor
wrote to DPS to confirm the disclosure request. On the 29th September, my solicitor had
received no response from DPS. He wrote to them again asking that they provide the
documents we had requested. DPS eventually replied to him on the 20th October, just 3
weeks prior to the hearing.They were refusing to disclose much of what we had requested,
citing that some of the documentation was subject to a Public Immunity Interest [sic] and
could not be disclosed.Why did it take DPS 4 months to respond to the original disclosure
request?” (Submission from IND 46.)
“Throughout my case I was repeatedly denied access to documents and information potentially
important to my defence.While some of the documents could conceivably be subject to
Public Interest Immunity issues, the police simply ignored the requests.” (Submission from Mr CC.)
“He started off saying … the CPS had finally succumbed to the formal requests for full
disclosure and one part had stated, which had been signed,‘all undisclosed material does not
undermine the Prosecution’s case.’ However, as soon as one starts to go through this material,
it soon becomes apparent that all undisclosed material completely undermines the
Prosecution’s case.” (Submission from IND 22.)
7.117 Regulation 12 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004
provides that disclosure may be withheld to prevent the premature or inappropriate
disclosure of information that is relevant to, or may be used in, any actual or
prospective criminal proceedings. Non-disclosure is also authorised if it is necessary
for the purposes of national security, the prevention or detection of crime, on
proportionality grounds, or in the public interest.
7.118 The MPS is, therefore, clearly entitled to refuse to provide disclosure, if the
relevant tests are met. Further, the story in relation to disclosure is not all one way,
and David Hamilton, the MPS’ Director of Legal Services, has told us that:
“… there is an increasing tendency on the part of lawyers representing officers to advance
preliminary arguments on behalf of their clients that presentationally and in substance mirror
162