A controversial policy of destroying recordings of trials after seven years is to be abandoned, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has disclosed.
The policy, affecting courts in England and Wales, had been carefully criticised by attorneys and miscarriage of justice campaigners, who acknowledged the destruction of courtroom records makes hard a conviction virtually very unlikely.
They advise cases like Omar Benguit – now the topic of a BBC Panorama investigation – the set aside aside crucial courtroom records were erased.
Benguit’s correct group claim the transcripts from his three trials would like equipped precious proof for an attraction – but all were destroyed sooner than they shall be examined.
As a journalism lecturer conducting analysis into courtroom reporting, as properly as miscarriages of justice, I was as soon as wanting to analyze, and requested more data from the MoJ by Freedom of Info requests.
In its responses to me, the MoJ publicly disclosed for the first time that trial records will now be saved for as a minimum as prolonged because the penal complex sentence – and possibly indefinitely.
The Insights section is committed to excessive-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with lecturers from many different backgrounds who are tackling an unparalleled number of societal and scientific challenges.
An MoJ spokesperson acknowledged: “This updated policy safeguards continued receive admission to to courtroom records for the explanation for appeals, experiences or any other correct lawsuits that can arise all over your entire length of the sentence.
“Retaining records for the total measurement of the sentence preserves judicial integrity, and protects the rights of all events concerned.”
Campaigners who fought for years to cease the policy of destroying courtroom records like welcomed the announcement. Jon Robins, a lecturer at Brighton University and co-organiser of the Begin Justice Charter, told me:
Here is a ultimate end result – and a sexy and belated victory for our campaign. We pointed out bigger than a decade ago that there was as soon as no that you would possibly imagine justification for the kind of draconian destruction policy, ever since our courts were dragged into the digital period and started recording lawsuits – as hostile to closing off the likelihood of challenges from those claiming to be wrongly convicted.
The pointless loss of courtroom paperwork – particularly, courtroom transcripts and the audio recordings of courtroom lawsuits – has on the overall proved an insurmountable barrier within the investigation of miscarriage of justice cases.
The official steering for how prolonged records should be retained is decided out within the crown courtroom’s File Retention and Disposition Agenda (RRDS). This currently states that the recordings of crown courtroom trials should be “saved for seven years and then destroyed”.
The MoJ confirmed to me that this policy has now been scrapped. It acknowledged that “efficient from October 9 2023 onwards”, workers had been advised to apply the next retention courses for crown courtroom audio recordings:
- One twelve months for now not-responsible verdicts;
- Seven years for non-custodial sentences;
- At the least seven years or the sentence measurement for custodial sentences (whichever is longer);
- And ninety 9 years for life imprisonment.
The MoJ acknowledged this is able to perhaps also formally submit this updated steering within the unique RRDS later this twelve months.
Digital forensics Discontinue of a ‘reckless’ policy
For just a few years, the policy of destroying recordings of trials attracted a tall deal of public criticism.
In January 2016, a letter was as soon as sent to the then secretary of say for justice, Michael Gove, urging him to interchange the policy. The letter – signed by 35 attorneys, lecturers and campaigners – acknowledged: “On this digital age, it is both reckless and irresponsible to systematically execute the memoir of courtroom lawsuits.”
Pawel Kacperek/Shutterstock
In October 2016, Jerry Buting, the American authorized respectable whose defence of Steven Avery featured within the Netflix docuseries Making A Assassin, told The Justice Hole that destroying recordings of courtroom lawsuits was as soon as “entirely ludicrous”, adding: “Digital recordings rob almost about no house. There just isn’t this kind of thing as a excuse for the courts to now not retailer forever – now not decrease than as prolonged because the defendant is alive.”
A later campaign called Begin Justice Charter (OJC) additionally highlighted the destruction of courtroom records as a key failing within the justice system, pointing out: “No recordings of prison courtroom lawsuits should be destroyed till now not decrease than seven years after the cease of the penal complex length of time and any post-unlock licence length imposed.”
Digital forensics What was as soon as heard by the jury?
The principal advise for those criticising the policy was as soon as what they seen because the deleterious like an tag on it was as soon as having on those making an attempt to advise a conviction.
The style the attraction system works is that if a prisoner wishes to advise their conviction, they must apply to the Criminal Instances Evaluate Fee (CCRC) with a notion to be allowed to rob their case to the Court of Charm.
The CCRC will now not refer the case except there would possibly be “fresh proof” – one thing unique which the distinctive jury failed to hear. And so, for any individual who believes they’ve been wrongly convicted, their beginning level will seemingly be to identify precisely what was as soon as heard by the jury.
For the prisoner and their correct group, this means getting receive admission to to the transcriptions of the trial. Without these, they threat submitting an utility in step with proof that’s now not concept of fresh, or omitting proof that will perhaps be extremely principal.
Some applications to the CCRC would possibly reach a protracted time – even a protracted time – after trials like happened, which device that now not even the prisoner will seemingly be in a say to utterly consider what happened in courtroom. As an illustration, one miscarriage of justice victim, Peter Sullivan, was as soon as freed 38 years after a jury wrongly convicted him.
Leading correct figures much like Michael Mansfield KC, who acted for the Hillsborough families, has argued that the destruction of records hugely disadvantages those looking out for justice. He told The Guardian: “Equally crucial is receive admission to to the memoir of lawsuits and case documentation, with out which injustice would possibly even be washed away.”
Emily Bolton, who founded Charm, the charity and law note dedicated to hard wrongful convictions, additionally described the destruction of courtroom records as “a full roadblock to investigating miscarriages of justice”. She added: “What’s the British system jumpy of? It’s a public trial, and there should be an accessible memoir of it.”
Digital forensics Extra groundbreaking than it first appears
No matter all of this, the MoJ took years to revise the policy. Per my FoI requests, it explained the decision had nothing to live with the criticism it had obtained:
The bogus from ‘seven years to seven years or the life of the sentence’ was as soon as pushed by unique laws (at the time) called The Parole Board Rules 2019. Those revisions were of particular importance as a potential to electrify sure that that audio records live accessible in your entire duration of a custodial sentence, particularly when the sentence exceeds seven years.
Nonetheless a stop evaluation of the MoJ’s responses to the FoI requests unearths one thing spicy – that the synthetic would possibly perhaps be worthy more groundbreaking than it first appears.
Whereas the MoJ would possibly perhaps be reluctant to spell it out explicitly, it appears that the official policy has quietly moved from a trouble of courtroom records being routinely destroyed, to 1 the set aside aside they’ll now be retained indefinitely. And the explanation within the back of this is now not correct or political – but purely all of the device in which down to perceive-how.
The destruction of courtroom records was as soon as truly a legacy of the analogue age; a time when stenographers quietly tapped away in courtroom and any recordings were saved on physical tapes.
In 2012, all of that was as soon as swept away when lawsuits in crown courts started to be recorded by the Digital Audio Recording Transcription and Storage (Darts) system, which device there was as soon as now not any must bodily retailer recordings on tape, and therefore no logistical reason to execute them.
So, whereas the unique policy dictates that records will seemingly be retained for as a minimum as prolonged because the penal complex sentence, the unique know-how has basically removed the need or justification for ever deleting to any extent further courtroom records. The MoJ came very stop to admitting this to me when it acknowledged: “Crown courtroom audio recordings are retained within HMCTS Digital Audio Recording Transcription and Storage system. To this level, none of these courtroom audio recordings like been deleted.”
If the Darts system had been storing recordings since 2012, and the MoJ policy was as soon as to execute recordings after seven years, then they should like started erasing cases since 2019.
Digital forensics Well-known charges
Whereas the synthetic is terribly principal and would possibly perhaps dramatically toughen receive admission to to courtroom records, one extreme barrier remains.
Whereas the audio recording of the trial would possibly now exist, it’s now not that you would possibly imagine – with the exception of in very cramped circumstances – to listen to it, so it should be professionally transcribed. And this is able to perhaps advise to be very – even prohibitively – pricey.
In 2023, MP Sarah Olney published that a rape victim had been charged £7,500 for a transcript of her assailant’s trial. And aged govt minister David Davis told parliament in 2024 he had been quoted £100,000 for a transcript of the Lucy Letby trial at Manchester Crown Court.
Many victims, particularly those that suffered sexual violence, are truly calling for transcriptions of trials to be made free. This unique campaign echoes an argument that miscarriage of justice campaigners like Bolton were making a decade ago. She acknowledged in 2016:
On this nation, the system was as soon as privatised, and now profit-pushed transcription firms like justice to ransom, anxious thousands of pounds to provide sections of transcript of a trial. Neither the Honest Support system nor particular particular person prisoners or their families can manage to pay for this, and so the recordings languish unreviewed, and the system goes unaudited.
Robins told me: “The next bolt for accountability in our courts is to electrify the audio recordings or transcripts of lawsuits on hand at an accessible mark. In an period when there are free AI transcription products and companies, these charges impact no sense.”
The decision by the MoJ to cease destroying recordings of trials device that courtroom records will now be on hand – as prolonged as any individual can manage to pay for them. It brings to mind the quip by nineteenth-century mediate James Mathew, who acknowledged that “in England, justice is originate to all – just like the Ritz Lodge”.
For you: more from our Insights series:
To listen to about unique Insights articles, be a part of the a total bunch of thousands of parents who price The Conversation’s proof-primarily based entirely news. Subscribe to our e-newsletter.
