Reforming Disclosure and Fraud Law for the Digital Age

26th January 2026

Jonathan Fisher KC's Independent Review and Likely Recommendations.

The Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences, chaired by Jonathan Fisher KC, represents one of the most extensive examinations of the UK criminal justice system's ability to handle complex digital evidence and modern fraud.

Commissioned because fraud now accounts for a substantial and growing share of crime, and because the volume of digital material in criminal cases has overwhelmed existing processes, the review spans two interconnected domains: criminal disclosure and fraud offences.

In December 2025, Fisher submitted the second and final part of his review — Fraud in the Digital Age — to the Home Secretary. While detailed recommendations have not yet been published, both the scope of the review and expert commentary allow credible predictions about which reforms are likely to be proposed. These projected reforms, taken together with the strong evidence base developed in the first part of the review, mark a strategic roadmap for modernising UK criminal law and procedure.

The Need for Reform - Digital Reality vs Historic Rules

The UK's criminal disclosure regime — governed primarily by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) — was crafted in a pre-digital era. At that time, police and prosecutors dealt largely with physical documents and evidence. Today, digital material — from emails to cloud storage and metadata — dominates investigations, especially in complex crime types such as fraud, organised crime, and serious sexual offences.

The first part of Fisher's review, published as Disclosure in the Digital Age, identified that the exponential growth of digital evidence is resource-intensive and time-consuming, slowing case progression and risking delays to justice. Cases with millions of digital items strain police, prosecutors, defence teams, and courts alike. Without reform, these problems threaten both the right to a fair trial and public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Likely Recommendations - What the Second Report Will Address

Although the detailed recommendations from the second report have not yet been released, a combination of the terms of reference, past expert analysis, and media coverage of the review provides insight into the areas where reform is most anticipated.

1. Modernising Fraud Offences and Prosecution Tools

One of the central goals of Part 2 was to assess whether existing fraud offences — particularly those under the Fraud Act 2006 — still reflect the nature of modern, digital-enabled fraud. Fraud today often involves identity theft, machine-generated scams, artificial intelligence-driven impersonation, and cross-border victimisation.

Likely recommendations include:

Updating the legal definitions and elements of key fraud offences to capture technologically enabled conduct more precisely.

Considering a spectrum of sanctions, including civil penalties and specialised orders tailored for digital and corporate fraud.

Ensuring that law enforcement and prosecutors have appropriate powers to pursue complex fraud at scale.

2. Incentivising Reporting and Disruption

Part 2’s focus on the fraud life cycle — from detection and reporting to investigation and rehabilitation — suggests that Fisher will recommend measures to encourage earlier reporting and more effective disruption of fraud networks. This could include:

Incentives for informants and whistleblowers, which may help law enforcement penetrate organised fraud networks.

Improved mechanisms for suspicious activity reporting, making it easier for individuals and businesses to alert authorities without fear of reprisal.

3. Strengthening Court Capacity and Penalties

Another anticipated area of reform is the court system’s ability to manage complex fraud cases. Likely recommendations involve:

Evaluating whether courts should adopt specialised procedural tracks for high-complexity digital cases.

Expanding the range of permissible penalties, both custodial and non-custodial, especially for repeat or corporate offenders, to ensure proportional justice.

4. Victim Support and Offender Rehabilitation

The review’s remit also includes examining whether support structures for victims of fraud are sufficient, and what rehabilitation programmes might be appropriate for offenders. This may lead to proposals such as:

Enhanced statutory support and compensation mechanisms for victims of large-scale fraud.

Rehabilitation pathways for offenders that incorporate digital literacy and restitution components.

5. Enhanced International Cooperation

Given that many modern fraud operations are transnational, the review is expected to address the need for stronger international cooperation. This could include:

Streamlined legal assistance frameworks.

Data-sharing agreements with key partner jurisdictions.

Joint investigative protocols with foreign law enforcement agencies.

Lessons from Part One - The Importance of Systemic Modernisation

The first part of Fisher’s review — Disclosure in the Digital Age — already set out 45 recommendations for modernising the disclosure regime. Key themes from these include:

Technology integration: Establishing a Criminal Justice Digital Disclosure Working Group to evaluate and standardise advanced tools, including AI, for managing digital evidence.

AI and ethics: Creating protocols for the ethical and secure use of artificial intelligence in evidence review.

Governance and training: Standardised accreditation for disclosure officers and ongoing training to maintain capability across police and prosecutorial teams.

Intensive Disclosure Regime: Proposing specialised processes for cases with exceptionally high volumes of digital material to prevent collapse or undue delay.

Data transparency: Improvements in quantitative data collection on disclosure performance to inform future reform efforts.

These recommendations reflect a broader principle: modernisation cannot be piecemeal. To sustain public trust in the criminal justice system, disclosure processes must be both fair and efficient in the face of digital compression of evidence volumes.

Trust, Law Reform, and Public Confidence

Underlying the review is a fundamental question about trust in state institutions — especially when the law lags behind technological change. Fraud, by its nature, undermines trust: it harms individuals financially and emotionally and corrodes wider economic confidence. Likewise, a justice system perceived as slow or incapable can weaken faith in the rule of law.

The Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences, by engaging law enforcement, judiciary, civil society, and victims, embodies a multi-stakeholder approach aimed at preserving that trust. Its likely recommendations — from legal definitions to technology governance, from whistleblower incentives to court reforms — are designed not just to improve prosecutions but to strengthen the credibility and responsiveness of the justice system itself.

Towards a Crime Framework Fit for the Digital Age

Jonathan Fisher KC’s review represents a comprehensive effort to rethink how the UK tackles both the procedural challenges of disclosure and the substantive challenges of modern fraud. While the specific recommendations from the second report remain forthcoming, the themes that emerge from the review’s terms of reference and expert commentary point toward a set of reforms that are technology-aware, victim-oriented, and structurally supportive of law enforcement.

In a time when digital fraud evolves faster than statutes and case law, the UK faces a pivotal opportunity to reform its criminal justice processes in ways that protect victims, ensure fair trials, and preserve public trust in the rule of law — all essential foundations for a stable and just society.

Expert and Practitioner Reactions to Jonathan Fisher KC’s Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences

The Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences, chaired by Jonathan Fisher KC, has been widely recognised as a landmark evaluation of the UK criminal justice system. Commissioned to examine the twin challenges of criminal disclosure and fraud offences in the digital era, the review has elicited extensive commentary from legal experts, practitioners, and academics. These reactions reveal both broad support for the need for reform and nuanced concerns about implementation.

The Need for Reform Recognised

Legal commentators overwhelmingly agree that the review has correctly identified serious problems in the current system. The criminal disclosure regime, which governs how prosecutors share evidence with defendants, was designed in a pre-digital era and struggles to cope with the sheer volume of digital material generated in modern investigations. Cases often involve millions of emails, messages, and documents, which can overwhelm law enforcement, prosecutors, and defence teams alike. Experts assert that this overload risks both delayed justice and unfair trials, making reform urgent.

Similarly, the review’s focus on fraud offences has been widely welcomed. Fraud has transformed into a pervasive and highly sophisticated criminal activity, often enabled by digital technology and spanning multiple jurisdictions. Commentators agree that updating the legal framework to reflect these changes is essential to ensure effective prosecution and public protection.

Support for Technological and Procedural Modernisation

Experts have particularly welcomed proposals to integrate advanced technology, including artificial intelligence, into the disclosure process. Tools that automate evidence review or prioritise material for relevance are seen as essential for managing modern digital caseloads efficiently, without compromising fairness.

Procedural recommendations, such as the creation of an Intensive Disclosure Regime for exceptionally complex cases, standardised training and accreditation for disclosure officers, and enhanced quality assurance, have also been positively received. Legal professionals note that these measures could prevent cases from collapsing due to unmanageable digital evidence, thereby strengthening both efficiency and confidence in the justice system.

The government has publicly endorsed these directions, signalling a commitment to modernising disclosure processes, technology, and training. This alignment between expert recommendations and policy intention has been interpreted as a positive step toward systemic improvement.

Concerns and Cautions from Defence Practitioners

While there is strong support for the review’s direction, some practitioners have expressed concerns. Defence lawyers highlight the risk that proposals could increase burdens on defendants, particularly private clients, who may be expected to engage with vast quantities of digital material. There is a fear that technological and procedural reforms could inadvertently shift responsibility from prosecutors to defendants.

Some experts also debate the root causes of disclosure challenges, suggesting that inconsistent application of existing law, rather than the law itself, may be a significant factor. These commentators caution that technological solutions alone may not address deeper procedural issues, and that reforms must be carefully designed to maintain fairness and safeguard defendants’ rights.

Balancing Efficiency with Fairness

Across the commentary, a central theme emerges: any reform must balance efficiency and fairness. Experts stress that while digital tools and procedural innovations are vital, they must be implemented in a way that preserves the principles of due process and the right to a fair trial. The challenge is to create a system that can handle modern criminal complexity without compromising fundamental legal protections.

Looking Ahead

With the second part of Fisher’s review on fraud offences still pending detailed recommendations, experts anticipate further discussion on how fraud law can be modernised to address digital and transnational criminal activity effectively. Likely areas include updated legal definitions, new procedural frameworks, and enhanced coordination between law enforcement, regulators, and international partners.

The reactions to the review thus far underscore both the necessity and ambition of reform. Legal professionals, academics, and government stakeholders appear united on the urgency of addressing disclosure and fraud challenges, while also acknowledging the care required to protect fairness, rights, and public trust.

The expert and practitioner responses to Jonathan Fisher KC’s Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences highlight a shared recognition of the pressing need to modernise the criminal justice system.

There is broad support for technological innovation, procedural reform, and updated approaches to fraud prosecution. At the same time, cautionary voices remind policymakers that reforms must carefully balance efficiency with fairness. As the criminal justice system adapts to the challenges of the digital era, these insights will be critical in shaping a framework that is both effective and trusted by the public.