Legal Institutional Methods And Assesment

Running head- LEGAL INSTITUTIONAL METHODS
Legal Institutional Methods
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

Legal Institutional Methods1
Disclosure is stated as the procedure in a criminal case where the person charged for
the crime is provided with the material copies of the documents or the materials that have
been collected in order to undermine the investigation process. Such documents are used as
evidence by the prosecution that may either prove the guilt or make him the convict. Thus,
disclosure of the materials or the pieces of evidence collected becomes necessary for a free
trial. Without such a proper procedure for the trial, the trial may be unfair or bias. This
procedure includes the prosecutors, investigators, defence squads and the courts that have a
significant role in the disclosure process by ensuring that the disclosure is done a fairway.
Disclosure of unused material is considered to be the significant factor of the prosecution and
investigation procedure. The process for the disclosure is governed by the Criminal
Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA), the Code of Practice and guidance, and the
common law1. In Whales, England and Northern Ireland, the procedure for the disclosure as
per the Act has generated various concern amongst the policymakers and the practitioners.
The main concerns included were fears about the potential of such Act, and the wrongful
convictions. The primary focus of the study is to investigate the problems that relate to the
outdated legislation for the procedure of disclosure of the unused materials. Such concerns
are too innate to be treated by legislative modification.
The non-disclosure of the unused materials has been an invitation to many tarnished
acts that leads to wrongful verdicts. The CPIA has been drafted in such a way that it does not
show a pathway for the other significant cases. Disclosure is considered as the arena of the
present justice system. This legislative and the functional conflict is aggravated by the
defective foundation supporting the CPIA that the system for the defence and the prosecution
may be reciprocal or equivalent. Prosecution and defence disclosure may be correspondent or
communal, but despite that both the procedures consist of separate rationales, raise different
1 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996

Legal Institutional Methods2
concerns, impose different responsibilities and inflict different sanctions. There were
constant accusations upon the fact that the unused material was causing a substantial struggle
in delivering justice. In a practical scenario, the majority of the offences had a limited source
for the defences. The problematic issues could be due to the disclosure issue that was due to
the lack of governance and the legislations. However, the CPIA does not include the cases of
the public relating to the claims of the public for the Public Interest Immunity. This portion is
expressly excluded from the Act. Although there were lots of debates and discussions on the
topic about the amendment and bringing reform, yet there were no such changes initiated by
the authorities in the Act2. Previously there was a two-stage procedure that was involved in
the process of disclosure that provided a list of non-sensitive along with the undisclosed
materials to the defence. This was known as the Primary stage for the prosecution disclosure.
This was the first step to initiate such disclosure as in the history of Criminal procedure the
defence was obligated to submit the statement in cases of advance in the trial with 14 days.
The investigator then reconsidered the unused material and stated to use those if they would
be useful in order to prove the guilt of the person. They were considered as the Secondary
Prosecutor Disclosure.
This statutory scheme placed errands on the actors of criminal justice. Such strange
outlooks led to the operational cessation of the Secondary Prosecution Disclosure stage of the
CPIA, as they were unable to resolve it due to the lack of proper legislation. This aggravated
more censure of the by the amendment3. The reviewed structure combines the two-way
procedure for the continuous duty upon the prosecution. The legislations were not proving to
be adequate in order to prove the guilt that was, in turn, hampering the delivery of the justice
system. There is a need for the amendment in such legislations for a free flow of fair trial and
2 Steve Wilson, Helen Rutherford, Tony Storey and Natalie Wortley, English Legal System (3rd edn, OUP
2016)
3 Ibid