Attorney General

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) does not structure its employees around particular categories of financial crime and therefore does not hold data on the number of employees deployed to combat money laundering created through waste crime.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) recognises the serious impact hate crimes have on peoples’ lives and will always seek to prosecute where there is sufficient evidence to do so, regardless of the offence, or how it is committed. In 2021/22, the proportion of successful outcomes in religiously aggravated hate crime with an announced and recorded sentence uplift was 79.8%.

Each CPS Area has a Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor as a strategic hate crime lead and a network of dedicated Hate Crime Coordinators operates across all 14 CPS Areas, providing their expertise on matters relating to hate crime and acting as a local point of contact for all external partner agencies.

In addition, the CPS has created a hate crime External Consultation Group, which is responsible for providing a community perspective on CPS activity, providing an important check and balance in respect of CPS casework quality, and includes representatives from Tell MAMA and the Community Security Trust (CST).

The CPS also sits on the cross-government working groups on anti-Muslim Hatred and on Antisemitism.

First Treasury Counsel is a senior self-employed advocate who undertakes civil litigation and advisory work for all Government departments. The Attorney General appoints First Treasury Counsel through a fair and open competition. First Treasury Counsel’s responsibilities are:

• To be the Government’s main advocate in civil litigation affecting the Crown. First Treasury Counsel has responsibility for dealing with the wide range of litigation affecting the Government. First Treasury Counsel will help to shape the way that the Government handles its litigation and as a result will help to shape the way that public law develops.
• To advise civil servants and Ministers in conference and in writing.
• To play a key role in leading the Attorney General’s panels and to participate in the selection of panel members.
• To speak at training events and conferences for members of the Government Legal Service.
• To play an important role in advising the Government. It is therefore important that First Treasury Counsel is able to give sound, practical and robust legal advice to Ministers and can inspire their confidence.
• To appear before a wide range of Courts in some of the most important public law cases of the day. First Treasury Counsel must be able to inspire the Judiciary’s confidence both as regards legal ability and integrity.

First Treasury Counsel is appointed on the basis that:

• They must do exclusively Government work for the duration of their appointment;
• No particular level of work or remuneration is guaranteed;
• They are self-employed;
• They must have dedicated administrative support within their chambers/office to support a very busy and varied practice as First Treasury Counsel; and
• The period of appointment is indefinite and terminable by either side at any time.

Whether and how often the Attorney General seeks and receives external legal advice relates to her function as a Law Officer and chief legal adviser to the Government. It is a longstanding convention, accepted by governments of all parties, not to disclose whether the Law Officers have been asked to give legal advice, have given legal advice, or the contents of any such advice.

This convention protects the Law Officers’ ability to give full and frank legal advice on some of the most contentious and difficult issues the Government may consider.

Within the limits of that convention, it is possible to say that, due to the volume and significance of the litigation and legal issues where First Treasury Counsel is instructed for the government, the Attorney General or the members of her Office have frequent contact with First Treasury Counsel.

The Attorney General and the Attorney General’s Office are subject to the same requirements and oversight in relation to the use of public funds as any other minister or Government department, as set out in the relevant guidance from HM Treasury.

First Treasury Counsel is a senior self-employed advocate who undertakes civil litigation and advisory work for all Government departments. The Attorney General appoints First Treasury Counsel through a fair and open competition. First Treasury Counsel’s responsibilities are:

• To be the Government’s main advocate in civil litigation affecting the Crown. First Treasury Counsel has responsibility for dealing with the wide range of litigation affecting the Government. First Treasury Counsel will help to shape the way that the Government handles its litigation and as a result will help to shape the way that public law develops.
• To advise civil servants and Ministers in conference and in writing.
• To play a key role in leading the Attorney General’s panels and to participate in the selection of panel members.
• To speak at training events and conferences for members of the Government Legal Service.
• To play an important role in advising the Government. It is therefore important that First Treasury Counsel is able to give sound, practical and robust legal advice to Ministers and can inspire their confidence.
• To appear before a wide range of Courts in some of the most important public law cases of the day. First Treasury Counsel must be able to inspire the Judiciary’s confidence both as regards legal ability and integrity.

First Treasury Counsel is appointed on the basis that:

• They must do exclusively Government work for the duration of their appointment;
• No particular level of work or remuneration is guaranteed;
• They are self-employed;
• They must have dedicated administrative support within their chambers/office to support a very busy and varied practice as First Treasury Counsel; and
• The period of appointment is indefinite and terminable by either side at any time.

Whether and how often the Attorney General seeks and receives external legal advice relates to her function as a Law Officer and chief legal adviser to the Government. It is a longstanding convention, accepted by governments of all parties, not to disclose whether the Law Officers have been asked to give legal advice, have given legal advice, or the contents of any such advice.

This convention protects the Law Officers’ ability to give full and frank legal advice on some of the most contentious and difficult issues the Government may consider.

Within the limits of that convention, it is possible to say that, due to the volume and significance of the litigation and legal issues where First Treasury Counsel is instructed for the government, the Attorney General or the members of her Office have frequent contact with First Treasury Counsel.

The Attorney General and the Attorney General’s Office are subject to the same requirements and oversight in relation to the use of public funds as any other minister or Government department, as set out in the relevant guidance from HM Treasury.

First Treasury Counsel is a senior self-employed advocate who undertakes civil litigation and advisory work for all Government departments. The Attorney General appoints First Treasury Counsel through a fair and open competition. First Treasury Counsel’s responsibilities are:

• To be the Government’s main advocate in civil litigation affecting the Crown. First Treasury Counsel has responsibility for dealing with the wide range of litigation affecting the Government. First Treasury Counsel will help to shape the way that the Government handles its litigation and as a result will help to shape the way that public law develops.
• To advise civil servants and Ministers in conference and in writing.
• To play a key role in leading the Attorney General’s panels and to participate in the selection of panel members.
• To speak at training events and conferences for members of the Government Legal Service.
• To play an important role in advising the Government. It is therefore important that First Treasury Counsel is able to give sound, practical and robust legal advice to Ministers and can inspire their confidence.
• To appear before a wide range of Courts in some of the most important public law cases of the day. First Treasury Counsel must be able to inspire the Judiciary’s confidence both as regards legal ability and integrity.

First Treasury Counsel is appointed on the basis that:

• They must do exclusively Government work for the duration of their appointment;
• No particular level of work or remuneration is guaranteed;
• They are self-employed;
• They must have dedicated administrative support within their chambers/office to support a very busy and varied practice as First Treasury Counsel; and
• The period of appointment is indefinite and terminable by either side at any time.

Whether and how often the Attorney General seeks and receives external legal advice relates to her function as a Law Officer and chief legal adviser to the Government. It is a longstanding convention, accepted by governments of all parties, not to disclose whether the Law Officers have been asked to give legal advice, have given legal advice, or the contents of any such advice.

This convention protects the Law Officers’ ability to give full and frank legal advice on some of the most contentious and difficult issues the Government may consider.

Within the limits of that convention, it is possible to say that, due to the volume and significance of the litigation and legal issues where First Treasury Counsel is instructed for the government, the Attorney General or the members of her Office have frequent contact with First Treasury Counsel.

The Attorney General and the Attorney General’s Office are subject to the same requirements and oversight in relation to the use of public funds as any other minister or Government department, as set out in the relevant guidance from HM Treasury.

The Government published a legal statement on 13 June 2022 summarising its position that planned legislation to address elements of the Northern Ireland Protocol is lawful under international law. As the Government’s legal statement makes clear, this is a genuinely exceptional situation against the challenging, complex and unique circumstances of Northern Ireland. Whilst it would not be appropriate to comment specifically on the content of the advice or who has given it, the government commissions a range of advice from appropriate specialists, and we have done so in this case.

Burglary is a terrible crime which can have a long-lasting impact on victims. The CPS is committed to bringing robust prosecutions against offenders who commit the offence of burglary and works with the police to ensure that the strongest possible evidence is put before the court. In 2020-21, the CPS prosecuted 8,703 cases of burglary with a conviction rate of 87.4%. CPS South West, which covers the above regions, had a conviction rate of 91.2%, which is above the national average.

The Attorney General commissioned a review into the Government Legal Department in October 2020. This was an internal review and as such it is not suitable for publication.

The Legal Risk Guidance is a fundamental document lawyers in government use in all aspects of their work. It was recently refreshed in light of the collective experience of Ministers and lawyers of its practical application.

The updated guidance will be published shortly.

The previous version is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-note-on-legal-risk

The Attorney General commissioned a review into the Government Legal Department in October 2020. This was an internal review and as such it is not suitable for publication.

The Legal Risk Guidance is a fundamental document lawyers in government use in all aspects of their work. It was recently refreshed in light of the collective experience of Ministers and lawyers of its practical application.

The updated guidance will be published shortly.

The previous version is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-note-on-legal-risk

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance urges caution about the use of the word ‘gang’, explaining how it can properly be deployed in a prosecution, where substantiated by the evidence and relevant to a matter in issue in the proceedings. In drafting the guidance, the CPS assessed the potential effect of using ‘gang’ in proceedings and identified that the term is used in legislation and by criminal justice partners. The guidance clearly sets out that, given the negative connotations of the term ‘gang’, prosecutors should not refer to a group as a ‘gang’ in proceedings unless there is evidence to support the assertion. However, prosecutors must also ensure that where there is admissible evidence of gang membership, the case is put on a basis that reflects the often very serious gravity of the offending.

No investigation will be carried out by the Government Legal Profession.

If a person making a request under the Freedom of Information Act (2000) is not satisfied with a response, they may exercise their statutory rights of challenge under the Act, complaining to the ICO and then appealing to the First-tier Tribunal.

In 2021, the CPS prosecuted: 69 alleged terrorists of which 63 were convicted. Over 19,000 alleged violent crimes, with a conviction rate of over 75%. Over 10,000 hate crimes, nearly 11,000 domestic abuse crimes and in that same year the Government introduced a Victims Code to ensure that victims are placed at the heart of the criminal justice system and that their voices are heard.

This Government is determined to increase the number of rape and sexual assault cases going to court.

The CPS is undertaking extensive work to drive up and improve prosecutions through its Joint National RASSO Action Plan with the police, the Rape Strategy, and the Operation Soteria Path Finders, which are testing methods for best practice in six CPS Areas.

Since publication of its strategy, the CPS has continued to see increases in the number of rape charges, prosecutions and convictions.

In the year ending September 2021, the CPS prosecuted 7,609 defendants where Fraud and Forgery were the principal offence. 84.9% of those defendants were convicted. In the last five years, the SFO secured reparations for criminal behaviour for organisations it investigated totalling over £1.3bn.

The CPS deploy a network of prosecutors around the world to help extradite suspects and secure the evidence needed to bring criminals to justice in this jurisdiction.

The Government has introduced the Online Safety Bill, requiring all companies to take robust action against illegal content. Companies will need to remove material that amounts to an offence in the UK regardless of where in the world it originated.

During the pandemic, the criminal justice system developed digitally enabled remote hearing capability, at pace, so that court-related activity could continue to the greatest degree possible.

The CPS has a fully digital casework process, and previously invested in a robust technology infrastructure which has enabled CPS staff to work remotely and engage virtually in court proceedings during this challenging period.

Recognising that listing is a judicial function, the continued development of technology, and its use to facilitate remote attendance in appropriate circumstances, presents an opportunity for gains in efficiency and flexibility in the deployment of work and people.

It is a longstanding convention, accepted by governments of all parties, not to disclose outside government whether the Law Officers have given legal advice or the contents of any advice. This convention protects the Law Officers’ ability to give full and frank legal advice on some of the most contentious and difficult issues the Government will be considering.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is an operationally independent body. The Attorney General is responsible for safeguarding the independent decision making of the SFO, to maintain this independence the Attorney General cannot overturn a decision reached by the SFO in a particular case.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is an independent arm’s length body who consider cases where people believe they have been wrongly convicted or wrongly sentenced. It would be inappropriate for the Government or the SFO to ask the CCRC to reconsider any decision they have made, including in the case of Tom Hayes.

There has been no further assessment made on the judgment of the US Court of Appeal in these cases.

It would not be appropriate to comment on this media speculation. It is a longstanding convention, accepted by governments of all parties, not to disclose whether the Law Officers have given legal advice or the contents of any advice. This convention protects the Law Officers’ ability to give full and frank legal advice on some of the most contentious and difficult issues the Government will be considering.

Disclosure remains one of the most important and complex issues in the criminal justice system, and it is a priority for this Government to encourage improvements in disclosure practice in order to ensure the disclosure regime operates effectively, fairly, and justly. The first annual review of the operation of the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure has just been completed and will be published imminently. That review involved close collaboration with policing, the CPS and others in the criminal justice system and has led to some important amendments to the guidelines which should aid front line policing, particularly in relation to the development of an annex on redaction.

The new approach of the Guidelines gives clear guidance on only providing relevant information to the CPS, for example by cutting footage from body worn video or only including relevant message chains not an entire phone image. In this way there is less to redact, thereby helping the burden felt by front line policing and the CPS.

The Government stands side-by-side with Ukraine in its domestic war crimes investigations and prosecutions. I have a close relationship with Ukrainian Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova, and met her and her team in person in Ukraine on 9 May 2022, to better understand how the UK and the international community can support Ukraine in its search for justice and accountability for Russia’s actions in its illegal invasion.

The Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office has opened over 12,000 case files and has hundreds of suspects. The UK and its allies are determined to provide practical and technical expertise to support their investigations. I have appointed Sir Howard Morrison QC, one of the UK’s leading war crimes lawyers and a former judge at the International Criminal Court, as an Independent Adviser to Prosecutor General Venediktova. My visit to Ukraine was also to lead a delegation of war crimes experts, who remained in Poland to meet international partners, NGOs, and other stakeholders to scope out the assistance the UK can provide. The Government and the UK’s wider operational bodies are carefully considering what support we can provide.

I know that our allies are equally supportive. Earlier this month I convened a meeting of the Quintet of Attorneys General from the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with Prosecutor General Venediktova. Following this meeting, we have published a joint statement which makes clear our countries’ support for Ukraine’s domestics war crimes investigations and prosecutions, and our commitment to work together with the Prosecutor General and her Office to ensure every perpetrator faces justice.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a central record of any defence employed by defendants in criminal proceedings. This information could only be obtained by an examination of CPS case files, which would incur disproportionate cost.

Since February, Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) have published reports on the performance of 5 CPS Areas: London South, London North, East of England, Yorkshire and Humberside, and Wessex.

Despite the pressures of the pandemic, the reports found improvement had been made in all the Areas. In the two London Areas, increasing caseloads and challenges in recruitment were both acknowledged by HMCPSI. However, inspectors noted that both Areas added value in aspects of their work with victims and witnesses.

In East of England and Wessex, inspectors praised both Areas for their joint working with other criminal justice agencies and found quality decision-making around disclosure of unused material.

The Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO) team in Yorkshire and Humberside were commended for seeking appropriate orders to protect complainants, witnesses and the public and consulting with witnesses in RASSO cases.

Although inspectors highlighted where improvements could be made, there were aspects of strength for all the Areas, which reflects the determination of the CPS to drive improvements.

This Government takes stalking and coercive behaviour very seriously. Since the implementation of legislation, the number of stalking and coercive behaviour cases brought to court has increased year on year.

To further improve the handling of these important cases the CPS has committed to key actions in the VAWG strategy and has recently published an updated programme of work on Domestic Abuse to help narrow the disparity between reporting and criminal justice outcomes, helping to secure justice in every possible case.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) fully recognises the importance of clear and open explanations of its decision-making, especially to victims of crime. The CPS’ Victim Communication and Liaison scheme ensures that timely letters are sent to victims when a significant decision has been made on their case. These letters have recently been revised to increase clarity of language, empathy and to introduce signposting to sources of information on the role of the CPS within the criminal justice system and victims’ rights.

The CPS recognises that it still needs to improve in its communication with victims and commissioned last year a significant piece of research to better understand victims’ needs. It is using those findings, together with stakeholder engagement, to inform its future work on improving their communications with victims.

In the last financial year, the Serious Fraud Office prosecuted two corporates, recovered over £45m in proceeds of crime and agreed three Deferred Prosecution Agreements. Between February 2022 and January 2023, the SFO has eight trials; 23 people have been charged with criminality worth over £550m.

The Law Officers meet regularly with senior officials at the Serious Fraud Office to discuss strategy and funding; through these meetings, as well as regular engagement between my Office and the Serious Fraud Office, I am confident that the organisation has the resource required for those trials.

The Government is committed to tackling fraud and economic crime, and the 10-year Fraud Strategy that will be published this year will set out plans to address the threat of fraud including the prosecution of fraudsters.

The majority of Serious Fraud Office cases already pass the ‘no case to answer’ stage. This is when the Judge rules that the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient, the trial will proceed to enable a jury to consider its verdict. It is not within the gift of the Serious Fraud Office, or the Government, to influence this.

In addition to the Fraud Strategy, the Serious Fraud Office received a funding uplift in the 2021 Spending Review, which included £4.4m over three years to invest in technology. This investment will complement the wider work that they are doing to reduce case lengths over the same period. This will have a positive impact on the SFO’s capacity to tackle serious economic crime.

In the last financial year, the Serious Fraud Office prosecuted two corporates, recovered over £45m in proceeds of crime and agreed three Deferred Prosecution Agreements. Between February 2022 and January 2023, the SFO has eight trials; 23 people have been charged with criminality worth over £550m.

The Law Officers meet regularly with senior officials at the Serious Fraud Office to discuss strategy and funding; through these meetings, as well as regular engagement between my Office and the Serious Fraud Office, I am confident that the organisation has the resource required for those trials.

The Government is committed to tackling fraud and economic crime, and the 10-year Fraud Strategy that will be published this year will set out plans to address the threat of fraud including the prosecution of fraudsters.

The majority of Serious Fraud Office cases already pass the ‘no case to answer’ stage. This is when the Judge rules that the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient, the trial will proceed to enable a jury to consider its verdict. It is not within the gift of the Serious Fraud Office, or the Government, to influence this.

In addition to the Fraud Strategy, the Serious Fraud Office received a funding uplift in the 2021 Spending Review, which included £4.4m over three years to invest in technology. This investment will complement the wider work that they are doing to reduce case lengths over the same period. This will have a positive impact on the SFO’s capacity to tackle serious economic crime.

Whether or not the Attorney General sought advice from external counsel in this case, and associated information, relates to her function as a Law Officer and chief legal adviser to the Government. It is a longstanding convention, accepted by governments of all parties, not to disclose whether the Law Officers have given legal advice or the contents of any advice. This convention protects the Law Officers’ ability to give full and frank legal advice on some of the most contentious and difficult issues the Government will be considering.

The Attorney General and the Attorney General’s Office are subject to the same requirements and oversight in relation to the use of public funds as any other minister and Government department respectively, as set out in relevant guidance from HM Treasury.

Whether or not the Attorney General sought advice from external counsel in this case, and associated information, relates to her function as a Law Officer and chief legal adviser to the Government. It is a longstanding convention, accepted by governments of all parties, not to disclose whether the Law Officers have given legal advice or the contents of any advice. This convention protects the Law Officers’ ability to give full and frank legal advice on some of the most contentious and difficult issues the Government will be considering.

The Attorney General and the Attorney General’s Office are subject to the same requirements and oversight in relation to the use of public funds as any other minister and Government department respectively, as set out in relevant guidance from HM Treasury.

Whether or not the Attorney General sought advice from external counsel in this case, and associated information, relates to her function as a Law Officer and chief legal adviser to the Government. It is a longstanding convention, accepted by governments of all parties, not to disclose whether the Law Officers have given legal advice or the contents of any advice. This convention protects the Law Officers’ ability to give full and frank legal advice on some of the most contentious and difficult issues the Government will be considering.

The Attorney General and the Attorney General’s Office are subject to the same requirements and oversight in relation to the use of public funds as any other minister and Government department respectively, as set out in relevant guidance from HM Treasury.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) does not hold the data on the estimated value of fraud reported to the Office over the last 10 years.

Referrals received by the SFO, whilst alleging crime, often do not provide an estimate of loss or actual loss reported. Identifying the true value of reported fraud requires investigation.

The SFO receives approximately 1,200 referrals of alleged criminality every year. These range in seriousness and come from a variety of sources, including the public, whistle-blowers and corporate referrals.

Every referral the SFO receives is researched and/or assessed to help determine if it is a matter that the SFO should investigate.

The SFO only takes on only the most complex fraud and bribery cases. Should a referral not meet the reasonable suspicion threshold and the Director’s Statement of Principle, it may be referred to another law enforcement agency or discontinued.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) does not hold the data on the estimated value of fraud reported to the Office over the last 10 years.

Referrals received by the SFO, whilst alleging crime, often do not provide an estimate of loss or actual loss reported. Identifying the true value of reported fraud requires investigation.

The SFO receives approximately 1,200 referrals of alleged criminality every year. These range in seriousness and come from a variety of sources, including the public, whistle-blowers and corporate referrals.

Every referral the SFO receives is researched and/or assessed to help determine if it is a matter that the SFO should investigate.

The SFO only takes on only the most complex fraud and bribery cases. Should a referral not meet the reasonable suspicion threshold and the Director’s Statement of Principle, it may be referred to another law enforcement agency or discontinued.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) opened a total of 49 criminal cases from January 2016 until December 2021. Ten (10) cases were opened in 2016, eleven (11) cases were opened in 2017, ten (10) cases were opened in 2018, five (5) case were opened in 2019, eight (8) cases were opened in 2020, and five (5) cases were opened in 2021.

These numbers do not include cases that are related to the SFO’s Proceeds of Crime, International Assistance and/or Mutual Legal Assistance efforts.

The below table shows the fines issued by the SFO since 2016:

The SFO does not hold data on fines issued prior to 2016. These results do not include costs awarded to the SFO nor any confiscation orders.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) were introduced on 24 February 2014, under the provisions of Schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. They are available to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office. Since 2014 the SFO has entered in to a total of 12 DPAs.

The above includes all financial amounts within each DPA, which could consist of:

• Financial Penalty
• Disgorgement of Profits
• Compensation
• Cost Awards to the SFO

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) opened a total of 49 criminal cases from January 2016 until December 2021. Ten (10) cases were opened in 2016, eleven (11) cases were opened in 2017, ten (10) cases were opened in 2018, five (5) case were opened in 2019, eight (8) cases were opened in 2020, and five (5) cases were opened in 2021.

These numbers do not include cases that are related to the SFO’s Proceeds of Crime, International Assistance and/or Mutual Legal Assistance efforts.

The below table shows the fines issued by the SFO since 2016:

The SFO does not hold data on fines issued prior to 2016. These results do not include costs awarded to the SFO nor any confiscation orders.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) were introduced on 24 February 2014, under the provisions of Schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. They are available to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office. Since 2014 the SFO has entered in to a total of 12 DPAs.

The above includes all financial amounts within each DPA, which could consist of:

• Financial Penalty
• Disgorgement of Profits
• Compensation
• Cost Awards to the SFO

The current version of the Director’s Guidance on Charging (DG6) is the sixth version and reflects significant changes in the way that cases are investigated, charged, and prosecuted since the last edition was published in 2013. Those changes include those revisions made by Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure 2020, and the revised Codes of Practice 2020 issued under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996​ (CPIA).

The first annual review of the operation of the disclosure guidelines has just been completed and will be published imminently. That review involved close collaboration with policing, the CPS and others in the criminal justice system and has led to some important amendments to the guidelines which should aid front line policing, particularly in relation to the development of an annex on redaction. The new approach of the Guidelines gives clear guidance on only providing relevant information to the CPS, for example by cutting footage from BWV or only including relevant message chains not an entire phone image. In this way there is less to redact, thereby helping the burden felt by front line policing. Further, the new, dedicated, annex on redaction sets out in detail and with examples how to apply the relevance, necessity and proportionality requirements. It also gives investigators direction on how to consider where redaction would be disproportionate due to time, resourcing and by taking counter measures such as enhanced security on document they provide to the CPS.

The section on accessing Third Party Material (TPM) has also been amended to include requirements that clear, pre-existing and recorded reasons must be present for any TPM request. Not only must requests be necessary and proportionate, but the Guidelines breakdown the relevant considerations for weighing necessity and proportionality to direct investigators and prosecutors to consider each issue in detail. For example: officers are directed to ringfence information to preserve it but not access it until necessary, and to examine alternative methods for accessing the same information without intruding into complainant or witness privacy wherever possible. There is also now a clear requirement to give ongoing, comprehensible and detailed information to those people whose information is accessed during investigations, which will help alleviate victims’ concerns about disproportionate and excessive requests.

The requirements in DG6 will be updated to reflect the upcoming changes made to the Attorney General’s guidelines and the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), the College of Policing and the CPS are working together through a National Disclosure Improvement Plan (NDIP) Working Group to implement the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure. That group includes a representative from Leicestershire police. The NDIP group is accountable to the Joint Operational Improvement Board (JOIB), a national Board chaired by senior leaders from the CPS, National Police Chiefs' Council and College of Policing, created to drive up standards in the criminal justice system and improve joint working in areas including disclosure. The Board’s work is mirrored locally by Joint Operational Improvement Meetings at police force and local CPS Area level.

It is a longstanding convention, accepted by governments of all parties, not to disclose whether the Attorney General has given legal advice or the contents of any advice. This extends to not commenting on the content of internal discussions in relation to the Attorney General’s function as a Law Officer and chief legal adviser to the Government. This convention protects the Law Officers’ ability to give full and frank legal advice on some of the most contentious and difficult issues the Government will be considering.

Neither of the Law Officers Department’s responsible for prosecuting fraud cases, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), hold data requested. Reported crime data is collated and held by the Home Office.

The SFO receives approximately 1,200 referrals of alleged criminality every year. These range in seriousness and come from a variety of sources, including the public, whistle-blowers and corporate referrals.

Every referral received is researched and/or assessed to help determine if it is a matter that the SFO should investigate.

The SFO only takes on only the most complex fraud and bribery cases. Should a referral not meet the reasonable suspicion threshold and the Director’s Statement of Principle, it may be referred to another law enforcement agency or discontinued.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) does not hold the data on the estimated value of fraud reported to the Office over the last 10 years.

Referrals received by the SFO, whilst alleging crime, often do not provide an estimate of loss or actual loss reported. Identifying the true value of reported fraud requires investigation.

The SFO is committed to supporting the victims of fraud, bribery or corruption.

The SFO receives approximately 1,200 referrals of alleged criminality every year. These range in seriousness and come from a variety of sources, including the public, whistle-blowers and corporate referrals.

Every referral received is researched and/or assessed to help determine if it is a matter that the SFO should investigate.

The SFO only takes on only the most complex fraud and bribery cases. Should a referral not meet the reasonable suspicion threshold and the Director’s Statement of Principle, it may be referred to another law enforcement agency or discontinued.

The Serious Fraud Office does not hold data on reported fraud cases to other law enforcement agencies.

A determination of the status in UK law of the findings of courts in foreign jurisdictions is a matter for the UK courts, as and when the need arises for such a determination in domestic proceedings.

The Government is delighted that after years of detention, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is safely home and has been reunited with her family and loved ones.

The total number and proportion of prosecutions for cases that have stopped post-charge because a victim did not provide evidence or has withdrawn, is not publicly available for each crime type by region and local justice area of England and Wales, in the format that has been requested. Figures for victim attrition for all crime by region are included in the local criminal justice scorecards, which can be found at www.criminal-justice-scorecard.justice.gov.uk/.

In April 2022, The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) launched a new Serious Economic, Organised Crime and International Directorate (SEOCID) which brings together specialists in economic crime, organised crime, proceeds of crime and international to deliver justice, combat crime across borders and take money from criminals.

This combined team of specialists will continue to work closely with investigators to disrupt the emerging threats of organised criminal gangs using cyber technology to exploit people, businesses, and the Government. Victims of complex SEOCID cases are often based in multiple jurisdictions. The directorate will work to improve their experience by ensuring investigators and prosecutors work closely and have a joint victim and witness strategy from the outset.

Establishing the new Serious Economic, Organised Crime and International Directorate is part of the CPS Economic Crime Strategy 2025.

The number of staff and prosecutors can be found in the table below:

NB: The data has been extracted from the CPS Oracle HR database and is accurate at point of enquiry on 21 April 2022. Consequent changes to data input may mean that this data will change at some point in the future.

*The system reports data as at the last day of the month rather than the first or any date in-between therefore the table is presented to the nearest reportable date to the questions asked.

*FTE figures have been rounded

The number of staff employed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) during the periods specified is available in the table below. The data provided includes all staff grades full time equivalent averaged across each year. During this period the CPS has undertaken continuous improvement and modernisation programmes to improve efficiency and effectiveness. These included digitalisation, development of a national resourcing model, standard operating practices, resource efficiency measures, smarter/remote working practices, and establishment of remote teams. As a national service for England and Wales, the consequence of these measures is that we now have the ability to shift work to where capacity resides which is both much more efficient, and also fairer on the workforce.

NB: The data has been extracted from the CPS Oracle HR database and is accurate at point of enquiry on 21 April 2022. Consequent changes to data input may mean that this data will change at some point in the future.

*The system reports data as at the last day of the month rather than the first or any date in-between therefore the table is presented to the nearest reportable date to the questions asked.

The average number of whole-time equivalent persons employed during each financial year (for which data is available) in the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and Government Legal Department (GLD) is as follows.

Attorney General’s Office:

Treasury Solicitor’s Office (from 2010-11 to 2014-15 inclusive) and Government Legal Department (from 2015-16 to 2020-21 inclusive):

It is important to note that several legal advisory units from departments across the civil service were incorporated into the Treasury Solicitor’s Department (TSol) and GLD account for the majority of staffing increases in the years preceding and succeeding the name change from TSol to GLD on 1 April 2015.

* The earliest Annual Report available in which these figures are published, is for the 2012-13 financial year, which also included a total whole-time equivalent figure for TSol and AGO for 2011-12.