Assize Data

You report the crime. You rarely learn what the court decided.

Assize Data closes that loop. We monitor published court listings and outcomes, match them to the incidents your organisation reported using corroborating identifiers, and notify you — with a person checking every release before it is sent.

Enquire by email See how it works

A service of Data Torturing Solutions, trading as Assize Data. United Kingdom.

Your cases, and only your cases
We report outcomes for matters your organisation reported. We do not build a wider dataset about individuals, and nothing is shared between clients.
Rules-based and explainable
No machine-learning scoring and no generative AI anywhere in the data flow. Every match can be explained by the identifiers that agreed.
United Kingdom only
Processing and storage in UK-region cloud infrastructure, with no international transfers.

01 — The gap

Outcomes do not come back on their own.

A security team can spend hours assembling a careful evidence package, hand it to the police, and hear nothing further. Not because anyone is withholding the result, but because there is no routine channel that returns a court outcome to the organisation that reported the incident.

No return path

The reporting organisation is not a party to the proceedings. Once a file leaves your hands, nothing in the process is designed to route the result back to you.

References do not survive the handover

Your incident reference is not the crime reference, which is not the case number. The matter is re-identified at every step, and the thread breaks.

Court information is dispersed

Listings and results are published venue by venue, in different forms and on different schedules. Much of what is published is available only briefly.

Nobody has the capacity to watch

Checking daily listings across every venue that might hear your cases is not realistic work for a team that also has a business to protect.

The result is that organisations cannot tell whether the effort they put into evidence made any difference. Internal records stay open. Boards are asked to fund prevention work that is evaluated blind. Colleagues who gave statements are never told what happened.

02 — How it works

Four steps, and no change to how you report.

The service sits behind your existing process. You keep reporting incidents exactly as you do today; we take on the monitoring, the matching and the checking.

  1. You report incidents as you already do

    No new workflow, no new system for your team to learn. You share the reference data you already hold for the incidents you have reported, through an agreed secure route.

  2. We monitor published court listings and outcomes

    We follow published court information across the venues relevant to your estate, on a continuing basis, so that short-lived publications are not missed.

  3. We match on corroborating identifiers, under human review

    Matching is deterministic and rules-based. A candidate is only considered when corroborating identifiers agree — an incident or police reference, a date, a venue. A name alone is never sufficient. A trained reviewer checks every release.

  4. You are notified about your own cases

    You receive what was listed, at which venue, and what outcome was published, with the source and the date it was published. Delivered to named recipients under your contract, and to nobody else.

What we ask you for

The identifiers below are what make a defensible match possible. Where they are absent, we say so rather than guessing.

  • Your own incident reference, so the notification can be filed back against your record.
  • The police or crime reference, where one was issued.
  • The date of the incident and the location it was reported from.
  • The court area or venue you would expect the matter to be heard in, if known.

What ambiguity looks like

When the published information does not corroborate a match to the required standard, we do not release a probable answer. You are told that the matter is unresolved and why, and it stays under review. A quiet month is a real result, not a gap in the service.

03 — Boundaries

What we will not do.

Some of the following are legal obligations. Some are choices we have made about what this service is for. We have written them down so that they can be tested in procurement, and so your data protection officer can read them before the first meeting.

Know your outcomes. Not judge the judges.

  • No machine-learning scoring, and no generative AI Nothing in the data flow infers, generates or ranks. The logic is a set of deterministic rules that a person can read, audit and challenge.
  • No matching on a name alone A name never establishes a match. Corroborating identifiers must agree — an incident or police reference, a date, a venue — or we release nothing.
  • No profiles, dossiers or watchlists We do not assemble a persistent picture of any individual, and we do not aggregate information about people across clients or across incidents.
  • No analytics about judges, magistrates or court staff We report what was decided. We do not rate, rank, compare or profile the people who decide, and we will not build a product that does.
  • No prediction, scoring or prioritisation of individuals We do not forecast outcomes, estimate recoverability, or tell any client who to pursue. The service reports what has already happened, after it has happened.
  • Nothing published at record level Output goes to the contracted organisation, for cases that organisation reported, and nowhere else. We do not publish, sell, syndicate or broker matched data.
  • Reporting restrictions and statutory anonymity respected Where publication is restricted or anonymity applies, the record is suppressed. We do not treat a restriction as an obstacle to work around.
  • Spent convictions suppressed Records are suppressed once the relevant rehabilitation period has been reached, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
  • No claim of completeness, and no promise about the courts We report what is published, as it is published. We cannot commit to the completeness or accuracy of court data, to court sittings, or to the availability of court systems — only to what we do with what is published.

04 — Compliance and provenance

Where the data comes from, and who has checked it.

This is a compliance-sensitive service sold into risk-averse organisations. The position below is the position we will state in a procurement questionnaire, an assurance review or an audit, without adjustment.

Data residency
United Kingdom only. Processing and storage take place in UK-region cloud infrastructure. No international transfers.
ICO registration
Registered with the Information Commissioner's Office, reference ZC218139.
HMCTS data licence
An application under the HMCTS Third-Party Courts and Tribunals Data Licence framework is in progress. We do not hold a licence under that framework at present, and we will not represent otherwise.
Data protection impact assessment
A DPIA has been completed for the service, and is revisited whenever the processing changes. Available to clients and prospective clients on request.
Code of ethics
A written code of ethics has been adopted and binds the service, including the boundaries set out above. Available on request.
Independent review
The service is subject to an annual independent review, with findings made available to clients under contract.
Human review
Every release is reviewed by a person before it is sent. The reviewer and the published source are recorded against the notification.
Explainability
Any notification can be traced back to the identifiers that matched and the published source it was drawn from. There is no model to interrogate, because there is no model.
Retention and deletion
Retention periods are set in the contract and applied automatically. Client-supplied identifiers are deleted on termination or on request.
Service commitments
Our commitments cover our own processing, review and delivery. Court information is reported as published, as is. We make no commitment about what the courts publish, or when.

05 — Contact

If you report crime and never hear the outcome, we should talk.

There is no form on this page and no tracking on this site. Email reaches a person. To make the first reply useful, it helps if you can tell us:

  • Your sector, and the rough scale of your estate.
  • Approximately how many incidents you report to the police in a year.
  • The court areas you are most exposed to, if you know them.
  • Who would need to sign this off — security, legal, data protection, procurement.

Please do not send personal data about any individual, incident details or evidence in an initial enquiry. We do not need it to have a first conversation, and we would rather you did not share it. We aim to reply within [to confirm] working days.