Why briefs of evidence still slow prosecutions and what law enforcement and regulators can do to address it

The brief of evidence sits at the heart of every prosecution. It is the foundation on which charging decisions are made, cases are assessed and matters ultimately succeed or fail in court. Yet for investigators, prosecutors, and counsel alike, creating and managing a complete, coherent brief of evidence remains one of the most challenging and time-consuming aspects of the justice process. 

Despite decades of practice, many of the problems associated with briefs of evidence are not legal in nature; they are operational, administrative, and increasingly technological. 

The challenge is clear. To keep pace with modern investigations, law enforcement and regulatory agencies must rethink how briefs of evidence are built, structured, and delivered. Digital tools and responsibly applied AI cannot be ignored and have the potential to transform the way prosecutors and regulators manage evidence, improve assessment efficiency, and reduce delays. 

The brief’s role in the prosecution decision-making process 

A brief of evidence is rarely a single document. It is a living body of material that evolves over the course of an investigation and prosecution. Witness statements, exhibits, forensic reports, digital evidence, timelines, and legislative elements must all be gathered, assessed, and presented in a way that allows prosecutors to fairly and efficiently evaluate the case. 

This challenge becomes even more pronounced when viewed through the prosecution lifecycle. As outlined by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth), the prosecution process involves multiple stages, including investigation, referral, assessment of the brief, charging decisions, case preparation, and court proceedings. 

At the assessment stage, prosecutors must determine whether: 

• there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, and 

• it is in the public interest to proceed. 

Both decisions rely almost entirely on the quality, structure, and completeness of the brief of evidence provided by investigators or regulators. Where briefs are disorganised, incomplete, or difficult to interrogate, assessment time increases, additional information is requested, and matters can be delayed, sometimes indefinitely. 

At each stage, the quality, structure, and completeness of the brief directly affect decision-making, including whether a matter proceeds at all. 

A poorly constructed or incomplete brief does not just slow the process down. It increases the risk of rework, delayed decisions, additional requests for information, and, in some cases, matters being discontinued altogether. 

Fragmented briefs: a persistent and costly problem 

In many regulatory and prosecution environments, briefs are still delivered in a fragmented manner. A hardcopy brief may be provided initially, followed by supplementary material sent over weeks or months via email. 

A common frustration expressed by counsel is that documents relevant to a brief are delivered across dozens, sometimes hundreds, of emails over the course of a retainer. Attachments often arrive at different times, in different formats, and without clear version control. It is not unusual for key documents to be forwarded multiple times, embedded within other email chains, or provided alongside unrelated material. 

The result is a brief that exists in pieces rather than as a single, authoritative record. 

For regulators and enforcement agencies, this fragmentation leads to: 

• increased requests for clarification or additional material 

• duplicated effort between investigators and prosecutors 

• extended assessment timeframes 

• increased legal costs 

• heightened risk of omissions or evidentiary gaps 

These challenges are explored in detail in our article on why prosecutions are inherently time-consuming exercises of preparation and proceedings.  
 

Why digital briefs are no longer optional 

While hardcopy briefs have traditionally provided structure and certainty, they are slow to compile, difficult to update, and poorly suited to modern investigations that rely heavily on digital evidence. 

A properly structured electronic brief of evidence offers clear advantages: 

• faster delivery to prosecutors 

• controlled updates without resending entire briefs 

• improved navigation and searchability 

• reduced reliance on email for evidentiary material 

• improved auditability and governance 

A well-organised electronic brief allows material to be delivered, updated, and reviewed in near real time. It removes the need to circulate documents via email, reduces duplication, and ensures all parties are working from the same, complete dataset. 

As explored in earlier Comtrac articles on early access to briefs of evidence and the causes of prosecution delays, the earlier prosecutors receive a clear, well-structured brief, the sooner meaningful assessment can occur. This directly impacts court backlogs, prosecution outcomes, and the efficient use of public resources. 

However, simply converting documents into digital form is not enough. Without consistent structure, evidentiary linkage, and procedural discipline, digital briefs risk replicating the same problems found in hardcopy and email-based approaches. 

Where AI fits and where it does not 

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in investigations and prosecutions, but it is important to be clear about its role. AI is designed to assist, not to replace human judgment. 

AI can assist with: 

• Analysing evidence to identify patterns or key information 

• Linking exhibits directly to offence elements 

• Highlighting gaps, inconsistencies, or missing material in a brief as it is being compiled 

AI should not: 

• Make investigative or prosecutorial judgments 

• Decide whether a matter should proceed 

• Replace the final decisions of investigators or prosecutors 

By clearly defining these boundaries, AI can handle the time-consuming analytical and administrative work, allowing investigators and prosecutors to focus on legal interpretation, strategic decisions, and ensuring the integrity of the evidence. 

In platforms like Comtrac, AI is used to support rather than replace investigative judgment. It can assist with tasks such as evidence analysis and linking exhibits to offence elements. Importantly, Comtrac operates using a human-in-the-loop model. Investigators and prosecutors retain full control over evidentiary interpretation and legal decision-making, while AI manages the time-consuming analytical and administrative work that has traditionally slowed prosecutions. 

Building prosecution-ready briefs from day one 

The most effective briefs of evidence are not assembled at the conclusion of an investigation. They are built progressively, in alignment with prosecution requirements from the outset. 

For regulators and enforcement agencies, this means: 

• structuring evidence as it is collected 

• aligning material to offence elements early 

• maintaining a single, authoritative brief 

• enabling prosecutors to assess matters sooner and with greater confidence 

In an environment of increasing caseloads, complex regulatory frameworks, and growing public scrutiny, the quality of briefs of evidence directly affects the effectiveness and credibility of enforcement action. 

For agencies seeking to reduce delays, improve outcomes, and strengthen confidence in decision-making, rethinking how briefs of evidence are built is no longer optional. It is essential.