Tom Farr secures not guilty verdicts after disclosure failures result in trial collapsing

September 10, 2024

Tom Farr, instructed by Martin Rogers of Russell and Russell, acted for S at trial in August 2024. S faced allegations of serious violence.

Due to considerable and extensive disclosure failures by both the police and the Crown, the Crown had to offer no evidence on the remaining Counts on the indictment on the day of trial, S having pleaded guilty to one Count earlier in proceedings.

Throughout the pre-trial process, the Crown continually failed to comply with its disclosure obligations under CPIA, arising from the failure of the police to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry, and to disclose to the Defence any material that might undermine the Crown’s case.

The Defendant had raised in his defence statement that there was material on his phone which would assist his defence. The police had seized his phone upon arrest in June 2023, but had not then examined it at any stage, nor had the phone been exhibited or referenced anywhere on the schedule of unused material, as it ought to have been.

This prompted further enquiries to be made, which revealed that other pieces of evidence had either not been logged and exhibited at all, or, if they had been, had not been disclosed to the Defence when they should have been.

Upon examining the Defendant’s phone one year after it was seized, it was revealed that the entire phone had been wiped clean of all data due to the passage of time. Had the police and the Crown complied with the various disclosure obligations under CPIA, it may have been the case that the evidence could have been preserved at an earlier stage, which would have allowed for an effective trial.

Given the considerable disclosure failures, and the fact that the Defendant was prevented from putting forward a key part of his defence, the Crown accepted that S’s right to a fair trial had been severely impacted, and concluded that offering no evidence on the remaining Counts was necessary.

This had the effect of concluding all proceedings against S who had been in custody for the equivalent of nearly 9 months. He was sentenced following the conclusion of the trial and received a sentence that in effect saw his near-immediate release.

Tom accepts instructions in all areas of criminal law, but has a particular interest in cases involving novel or complex points of law. To instruct him, please contact his clerks here.