Problems with disclosure have haunted the Serious Fraud Office in recent years.

Disclosure is the obligation on a prosecutor to identify and provide to the defence material that either supports the defence case or undermines that of the prosecution.

An essential building block of disclosure is reviewing and then describing the material collected during an investigation — either individually or in batches, depending on what it is — on a list. This permits the prosecutor to decide from the description which material satisfies the test for disclosure.

There is no doubt that the burden of conducting disclosure is an onerous one. An average SFO case has 5mn documents, with the largest having more than 48mn. The SFO estimated in 2024 that disclosure ate up around a quarter of its operational budget (which is smaller than its overall budget). But it is a vital part of a defendant’s right to a fair trial. When it goes wrong, the consequences can be catastrophic.

The collapse of high-profile SFO prosecutions in Serco and G4S and the overturned convictions in Unaoil led to two case specific reviews, one by Brian Altman KC and one by Sir David Calvert-Smith, whilst the third was the subject of an inspection by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. All three described an organisation that was under resourced and which under prioritised disclosure.

Looking for solutions, the government commissioned Jonathan Fisher KC to conduct an independent review of the disclosure regime in all cases that involve large volumes of digital material, including but not limited to those handled by the SFO.

https://www.ftadviser.com/serious-fraud-office-uk/2025/7/29/sfo-haunted-by-disclosure-burden-but-is-better-tech-the-answer/