Thread by @BarristerSecret

Why might there be a delay in the details of a police investigation being made public?

Well, many reasons. None of which relate to a conspiracy or a “cover-up”.

Let’s take a quick look🧵👇

First there are the practicalities of modern investigations, particularly in serious and complex cases where the police are reviewing multiple digital devices, such as mobile phones and computers.

Sometimes a device is encrypted, or a suspect won’t give their PIN, which makes it more time-consuming for the police to access the device. If/when they do, a mobile phone “download” can contain tens if not hundreds of thousands of pages to review. This takes time.

Digital investigations often take months. This evidence is rarely available in the first days after an arrest. Often a defendant is arrested, charged, brought before the court and then charged with new offences months later when his phone is reviewed.

Investigations are fluid. Discovering one piece of evidence is rarely the end of the story. One piece of evidence usually opens another line of enquiry, which needs to be fully investigated before any conclusions can be drawn or decisions made.

For instance, have the police seized a substance of interest? That will need scientific examination. There may be leads to other potential suspects. There may be sensitive intelligence which requires reviewing. Legal advice will often be needed.

All of this requires time and sensitivity. Not real-time public commentary.

What about when the police have this new information/evidence? Do they immediately release everything they know into the public domain as soon as they receive it?

Well, no. That’s not really how it works. For reasons which probably seem obvious.

1) It doesn’t help any investigation to tell everybody everything the police know at every stage;

2) It doesn’t help the public to be given a drip-feed of information that is unconfirmed and liable to change.

3) It is liable to prejudice criminal proceedings.

Why could releasing information prejudice criminal proceedings? Well because the new information may not be relevant to the matters already before the court. They may be entirely unrelated. And the public hearing about one might prejudice a jury hearing a trial of the other.

There’s also the possibility that the new information, although initially appearing damning and/or relevant, might not result in a criminal charge. Again, the police are not going to jeopardise a fair trial by releasing information which may not in fact be borne out.

The decision whether to charge a suspect, and with which offences, is made by the CPS, who review evidence gathered by the police and advise on what else is required before a charging decision can be made.

This process does not take place in public. And can again take time.

What about when a charging decision has been made? Some offences require the consent of the Attorney General - a government minister - before charging. When the government is aware of potential new charges, do they publicly announce this fact?

Well no. That’s not their job.

The police and/or CPS will sometimes give a public statement when a charging decision is made, but not always. In most cases, the first time any detail is put into the public domain is when a defendant appears before the magistrates’ court charged with new offences.

Even when a defendant appears before the magistrates’ court, there will be restrictions on what information the police and CPS choose to make public, and on what information the press can report. This is not a conspiracy - it is to protect the fairness of criminal proceedings.

All of this is known to anybody with any experience of criminal justice. It is certainly known by politicians who have worked in the Home Office.

Any suggestion of “cover-up” should be supported by hard evidence.

Nobody has yet provided any such evidence. Just conspiracism.

Finally, without going into specifics, a free piece of advice:

People convicted of racist or violent crimes do not suddenly have “unsafe convictions” because information comes to light which, in their own minds, retrospectively justifies their racism and/or violence.

Sorry.