NOTE
POLICE DISCLOSURE INTERIM GUIDANCE
Merseyside/Cheshire Police have had considerable difficulties in complying with requests for disclosure in that the same have become disproportionate and orders continuously are served too late leaving them less than 28 days to comply.
A meeting has been held with His Honour Judge Parker and District Judge O’Neill on this issue and I have been requested to issue interim guidance until we can resolve this matter by producing standard orders. That is in the process of being done.
Such is the urgency in relation to this matter, however, I have chosen to issue interim guidance so that there can be some amelioration in relation to the problems caused.
Accordingly, I have proposed the following interim solutions:-
1. Orders for police disclosure should set out the key issues in the case so that the police are able to identify them and reach a more reliable decision on what constitutes relevant documentation for the purposes of disclosure.
2. A proportionate timeframe for the period for which disclosure is sought should be given. Requests beyond five years should be justified.
3. In providing that disclosure the police should also identify the types of documentation that they have not disclosed because they do not consider it to be relevant.
4. Every order for police disclosure should simply direct the police to disclose the relevant documentation within 28 days following service of the order rather than setting out the exact date. This will avoid the problem of the police being given less than 28 days due to late submission of order for the judge’s approval or late service of the order on the police.
5. Orders for police disclosure should be drawn up immediately and served upon the police within 24 hours.
6. If there is a genuinely urgent case then the police are prepared to deal with it as such. Proper justification should be given to the judge to justify such an approach.
7. The order for police disclosure may be served before it is approved so that the police can begin work on the disclosure as soon as possible.
8. Knowsley Borough Council are prepared to enter a pilot where they will apply for police disclosure at the same time as they apply for a care order to see if that is effective.
9. Disclosure orders moving forwards should not contain any reference to FWINS which is meaningless. The order should also avoid using phrases like “all other logs and computer records.”
10. Judges dealing with Private Law cases who are drafting their own orders should send a copy of the order to the police direct. (E-mail to be provided by Gillian Best).
11. If a request for standard disclosure triggers a need for the police to take further non-standard steps to secure relevant documentation that will take longer than the 28 days given then the police should use their power to seek a variation of time allowed in respect of that additional documentation but should still proceed to give the standard documentation on time. Requests for extension can be by e-mail.
12. In the event that the police feel that an unreasonable and disproportionate order for police disclosure has been made and served upon them they have the right to apply by e-mail to the court for variation of that order.
13. Blanket requests for documentation relating to mobile phones should be avoided. This needs to be defined and proportionate (otherwise this can necessitate disclosure of thousands of pages).
Her Honour Judge de Haas Q.C.
Designated Family Judge for Cheshire & Merseyside