For a Review Board or Court case, a bundle of documents typically includes key papers and evidence relevant to the matter under review.
These documents should be compiled with a focus on clarity and relevance, ensuring easy access and review of the information so that they can make informed decisions. The bundle is typically organised and indexed for efficient navigation and reference during the review process. They might consist of:
Case Summary: A concise overview of the case, outlining the main points and issues for the Review Board’s consideration.
Relevant Correspondence: Letters, emails, and other communications pertinent to the case, including any formal complaints or responses.
Official Reports and Statements: Documents such as investigation reports, witness statements, and expert opinions that provide detailed information and insights into the case.
Policy and Procedure Documents: Copies of any relevant policies, procedures, or guidelines that apply to the case, to assess compliance or identify deviations.
Evidence Records: Supporting documents, including contracts, records of meetings, photographs, deeds or cadastral documents, or any other material that provides context or proof of claims.
Decisions and Previous Rulings: Any previous decisions or rulings related to the case, if applicable, to understand the historical context and progression of the matter.
In my recent Admin Review case, which, according to the States’ website, was the first to be heard in Guernsey for 5 years, I had this task. I wasn’t going to this concatenation of maybe 50 documents manually, and I didn’t have the required software to hand, nor was I going to pay for an ongoing subscription to Acrobat Distiller.
And I had little time. So I created a rough and ready tool called catpdf in Python with some open-source libraries. In case others need such a tool, in their endeavours to obtain justice in Guernsey and elsewhere, I’ve put all the code on Git Hub.
https://github.com/JBDAC/catpdf
I wish you better luck than I had. In my recent case, the Admin Review Board allowed a civil service orchestrated re-review which ignored the primary evidence, refused to explain why and then closed the case; thereby protecting the civil service.