Another case collapses because of disclosure blunders

A people trafficking trial has collapsed after ‘wholesale failure’ by prosecutors to disclose key evidence to defence lawyers.

The trial of Adrian Iordan, 26, Anisoara Lautaru, 20, and Petruta-Cristina Bosoanca, 25, was halted after the complainant’s story fell apart.

She told police she had been brought from Romania into the UK for prostitution and had become pregnant as a result of being raped.

But a doctor examined her and found she was pregnant before she came to Britain.

Defence lawyers were not handed the medical records until the trial, even though the doctor examined the woman in January last year.

Social media and phone evidence that also contradicted her evidence were similarly not handed over to the defendant’s legal representatives despite repeated requests until the trial.

The material was not included on an ‘unused material’ schedule that is signed off by a representative from the police and the CPS.

Wood Green Crown Court heard the initial schedule was prepared in January 2017 but was ‘inadequate’.

The reviewing lawyer, who specialises in trafficking, was also said to have given written assurance to Judge Gregory Perrins during the trial that disclosure obligations had been complied with.

Judge Perrins said: ‘These were extremely serious allegations which would have attracted lengthy custodial sentences had the defendants been convicted.

‘All three defendants have been remanded in custody for a long time. Custody time limits in relation to both Miss Bosoanca and Miss Lautara have been extended at the request of the prosecution.

‘While in custody awaiting trial Miss Bosoanca has given birth to a child.

‘Her child has remained with her in prison throughout these proceedings. During the course of these remand hearings the prosecution submitted that this was a strong case.

‘It has since become clear that there have been serious errors in the way the prosecution dealt with disclosure throughout 2017. There have been failures by both the police and the CPS.

‘This was a large scale investigation which generated well over 20,000 pages of served evidence.

‘In a case of this size it is essential that unused material is accurately recorded on the unused material schedule and is properly reviewed by the disclosure officer and the reviewing lawyer to assess whether there is material which either assists the defence or undermines the prosecution case.

‘From what I have observed such material was not accurately recorded nor was it properly reviewed.’

The court heard the police disclosure officer viewed the medical records which included a witness statement from a Dr Forsyth stating that the complainant was pregnant before she arrived in the UK as ‘sensitive’ and ‘as such should not be recorded on the unused material schedule’.

Judge Perrins said: ‘This prevented the defence knowing about the existence of such records.

‘The defence were repeatedly informed that there were no medical records and no reference to medical records appeared on the unused material schedule.

‘However, several days into the prosecution case the defence were told in fact that there were medical records.

‘This evidence helped to establish that she was pregnant when she arrived in the United Kingdom thereby undermining her account.’

It was also said that the defence were first informed during the trial that there were further notes that ‘appeared to have been lost’ and the notes did not appear on the unused material schedule.

A few days later they were discovered but it was ‘unclear where they were, how they were being stored and why there was such confusion on the part of the police in relation to relevant material’.

Social media evidence was only been handed over to the defence on the second day of the trial even though lawyers had been requesting it since August 2017.

Police viewed the material as far back as February 2017 and experts had translated messages well before the trial.

The prosecution served 65,000 messages on the second day and further messages on Facebook as the trial progressed.

Judge Perrins said: ‘It is unclear why these messages were not disclosed sooner.

‘This material fundamentally undermined the account given by the complainant’.

The hearing continues.