His Honour Judge Darren Preston, at Preston Crown Court, has condemned Lancashire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service after serious evidence failures disrupted a criminal case.
The case concerns a Blackburn man accused of sexual assault and controlling or coercive behaviour. He denies the allegations and has not faced trial.
According to the Lancashire Telegraph, Judge Preston ordered his release from custody, after repeated delays involving evidence.
Although the CPS also attracted criticism, the case raises serious questions about the underlying police investigation.
Lancashire Police failed to complete essential evidence work
Police investigators must gather, examine and disclose relevant evidence promptly. This responsibility becomes even more important when a suspect remains in custody.
However, officers reportedly failed to complete necessary work involving digital material. As a result, prosecutors could not properly prepare the case for trial.
Judge Preston reportedly described the performance of the police and CPS as “incompetent”. He also called the situation “preposterous”.
These are exceptionally strong words from a Crown Court judge. Moreover, they suggest more than a minor administrative oversight.
Digital evidence often forms a central part of Crown Court cases. Police therefore know that phones, messages and electronic records may require detailed examination.
Consequently, officers should identify the work early and establish a realistic completion date.
Police failures affected a man’s liberty
The accused man remained in custody while the authorities failed to prepare the evidence.
Remand does not amount to a sentence. In addition, every defendant remains innocent unless and until a court finds them guilty.
Therefore, delays take on a particularly serious character when they extend someone’s detention before trial.
Judge Preston ultimately ordered the man’s release on bail. However, that decision cannot return the time he has already spent in custody.
Nor can it repair the disruption to his family life, employment and ability to prepare his defence.
The failures also affect the complainant
Poor police work does not only harm defendants. It can also cause further distress and uncertainty for complainants.
A complainant may prepare emotionally for a trial, only to discover that the authorities have not completed essential investigative work.
Moreover, repeated delays can weaken memories and make witnesses less confident. They can also damage public confidence in the eventual outcome.
Prompt and competent investigations therefore protect everyone involved.
Police failures waste court time and public money
An avoidable delay affects far more than one hearing.
The court must rearrange judicial time. Barristers and solicitors must repeat preparation. Witnesses face further inconvenience, while prisons remain under severe pressure.
Meanwhile, taxpayers fund the consequences.
Therefore, proper investigation is not simply a matter of efficiency. It represents a basic requirement of justice and responsible public spending.
Lancashire Police must demonstrate accountability
Judge Preston’s criticism should trigger a meaningful review of the police investigation.
Lancashire Police should establish what went wrong, who held responsibility and whether supervisory failures contributed to the problem.
Furthermore, the force should publish enough information to reassure the public that it has learned from the case.
The allegations against the defendant remain matters for a jury. His release on bail neither proves nor disproves them.
Nevertheless, one fact appears clear: police failures should never determine whether a criminal trial can proceed fairly and on time.