Cell Site Analysis takes time

Cell Site Analysis Experts are generally being instructed very late in many cases.

It would seem though that this is becoming the norm which is quite worrying as complex cell site analysis really does take time. A sought after cell site expert will normally be booked for some time in advance leaving fewer opportunities to take on very late cases.

We have been instructed after a trial has started on many occasions and this has generally been through late service of prosecution evidence. If this happens then it should be expected that the defence teams are given enough time to have the evidence reviewed and any necessary work conducted and this does happen, however not in every occasion. In many cases the defence are given a couple of weeks for example, which in theory is fine. This does not however take into account the fact that in most cases a quote needs to be sought for LAA funding, then in some cases it is rejected and a second quote is needed, and then there is the subject of the call data records and obtaining them in a format which can be worked with.

We were instructed to conduct the cell site analysis in relation to a case which is currently at trial. This was a fairly late instruction, but all the same we were formally instructed one week prior to the trial and an application had been put forward for the call data records one month before the trial and we were finally supplied with the call data records by the prosecution 3 days into the trial. Luckily this trial is due to run for quite a number of weeks and the telephone evidence can be completed in time.

Cell Site Analysis evidence is complex and also pivotal to many cases, yet there seem to be numerous problems with late service. In many cases the prosecution have done some work themselves ‘in-house’, no doubt expecting a guilty plea at PCMH. If pleas are still “not guilty” then often an “expert” will be brought in to conduct the work rather than rely upon the prior evidence whereby the police analyst can only give opinion of fact and not of opinion as is the case of the “expert”. This therefore gives the defence less time to prepare their own cell site analysis and engage a reputable expert.

There has been much in the press regarding the case of R v Renata Andrews which I am sure many of you are aware, and this involved cell site analysis evidence, disclosure and the costs involved in reviewing the same. The case was discontinued as the Crown offered no evidence and the jury came back with “not guilty” verdicts. The Barrister who represented Renata Andrews has stated that several of the defendants in the case pleaded guilty at the preliminary stages and one wonders what they must be thinking now.

There do have to be financial constraints in place; however it is very worrying if it is the case that trials are discontinued due to costs.

The Barrister from 25 Bedford Row who represented the lead defendant in the case wrote an article about it entitled “What Price Justice?”

What price indeed.