Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Keen of Elie on 19 February (HL5998), whether there are any circumstances under which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) may alter the speed at which video evidence is shown in court, and if so, whether the CPS is obliged to inform the court that the speed of the video evidence has been altered.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
Video evidence is routinely examined in court during criminal trials either frame by frame or at different speeds in order to aid the court’s understanding. In the case of image stills, time stamps can be used to indicate the passage of time between images. Both defence and prosecution lawyers are under a professional duty not to mislead the court.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Director of Public Prosecutions about the possibility of charges of fraud, corruption, conspiracy and attempting to pervert the course of justice being brought against lawyers working for Leigh Day and Public Interest Lawyers with regard to the Al Sweady case.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The Crown Prosecution Service routinely provides the Attorney General with updates on cases and casework issues. In accordance with the practice adopted by previous Law Officers the Attorney General does not usually comment on which individual cases are raised with him.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to take Mark Pearson to trial for sexual assault, and the claim by the defence solicitor in that case that the CPS initially provided amended and misleading video evidence to the court.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The CPS's function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider.
The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, as this can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and, if so, whether the public interest lies in prosecuting.
It is open to the defence in any crown court case to argue, after the prosecution has closed its case, that the evidence is too weak for the decision to be left to the jury. In this particular case the judge clearly considered that the decision was properly a matter for the jury.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to investigate the basis on which the Crown Prosecution Service brought charges against Donald Summersgill and joint-masters Rupert Andrews and David Greenwood of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds.
Answered by Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) properly applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors to the available evidence when making a decision to charge the three individuals with offences under the Hunting Act 2004. Having applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the decision was that at that time there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for the charges laid against all three men.
Prosecutors must take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as a case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. As a consequence of further information being made available it later became apparent that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. The case was duly stopped.
There is no reason to believe that the CPS in reaching the decision to charge these three individuals did anything which requires an investigation into its conduct of the case.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what scrutiny the Crown Prosecution Service makes of any evidence presented to them by the League Against Cruel Sports alleging breaches of the Hunting Act 2004 before deciding to prosecute.
Answered by Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes following an investigation and referral of a case by the police. If the police charge an offence under the Hunting Act 2004 without a request for advice, a crown prosecutor reviews the case following charge. Each case will be reviewed in accordance with the Full Code Test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Where the evidential and public interest stages of the Full Code Test are met, then the CPS will robustly prosecute.
The prosecutor must consider whether each piece of evidence is admissible, reliable and credible – this would include being satisfied that it was lawfully obtained. Evidence provided by the League against Cruel Sports would be looked at in the same way as any other evidence.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to investigate the basis on which the Crown Prosecution Service brought forward a prosecution against Terrence Potter and Paul Whitehead of the Lunesdale Hunt.
Answered by Lord Wallace of Tankerness
There is no plan to investigate the basis upon which this prosecution was brought.
The prosecution was brought following an investigation by North Yorkshire Police into the alleged commission of a wildlife crime. The two defendants were originally charged by the police to appear in Court on 5 September 2014. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) subsequently undertook a review of the case, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and determined, firstly, that there was a realistic prospect of conviction and, secondly, that it was in the public interest to prosecute.
As the allegations were denied, the case was listed for trial before York Magistrates’ Court on 21 January 2015. On the day of trial, two key prosecution witnesses who produced video evidence of the offence were unavailable to attend court. The CPS had previously made an application to adjourn and reschedule the trial. Due to an administrative failing this application was made very close to the trial date and it was refused by the court. The trial then took place in the absence of these two witnesses and without their evidence being heard. The Court found no case to answer against each defendant.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to investigate the basis on which the Crown Prosecution Service brought charges against Mr Liddle of the Melbreak Hunt, charges which were then dropped.
Answered by Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Cumbria Constabulary charged Mr Liddle with hunting a wild mammal with dogs (contrary to Sections 1 and 6 of the Hunting Act 2004) and allowing dogs to be dangerously out of control (contrary to Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991). This followed an incident on 9 March 2014 when members of the public witnessed a fox being killed by a pack of hounds on land near Buttermere. The police were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr Liddle and issued a postal requisition on 6 June 2014. These offences fall within the category of offences where the charging decision rests with the police. Mr Liddle appeared at Workington Magistrates Court on 27 June 2014 and pleaded not guilty to all charges. Following receipt of all the evidential material from the police, the case was reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service’s North West Area Wildlife Crime Lead. He applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors and determined that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction having considered all of the required elements of the offence. Following consultation with Cumbria Constabulary the case was discontinued on 10 September 2014. The Crown Prosecution Service did not, therefore, bring charges against Mr Liddle. The case was brought to an end after the full evidential material was reviewed.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to prosecute jihadis who have fought with ISIS and return to the United Kingdom; and if not, why not.
Answered by Lord Wallace of Tankerness
If there is evidence that people are going to Syria to engage in terrorist activity they can be arrested and prosecuted. Each case is considered individually in accordance with the rules of the applicable criminal law jurisdiction. In England and Wales if the police refer a case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), they consider whether the test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors is met; that is whether there is sufficient evidence of any offence, and if so, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. A similar public interest approach is taken by the office of the Lord Advocate, the sole prosecuting authority for Scotland.
Whether an individual is arrested or prosecuted for a terrorism offence will always depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and is an operational decision for the police and responsible prosecuting authority. Safeguards are built in to our legislation and we rely on the professionals involved to make sure that prosecutions are pursued in appropriate cases. Whether any specific act falls within the definition of ‘terrorism’ and whether any individuals or groups have committed an offence will always depend on all facts and circumstances of the case. Depending on the specific circumstances, anyone who becomes involved with fighting overseas may be prosecuted under the applicable law on their return.
A very wide range of offences already exists on the statute books that can be used to prosecute such individuals and to manage the risk they may pose on return, including in the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006 which provide extra-territorial jurisdiction in relation to certain activities. In particular, where there is evidence that individuals are planning, promoting, funding, facilitating or participating in terrorist activities overseas - including involvement in fighting for terrorist groups - the relevant authorities will seek to prosecute them, before they go or on their return.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to bringing criminal charges for conspiracy and misconduct in a public office against any officials, social workers, councillors and police officers who failed to take action against child abusers and rapists, as outlined in the report by Professor Jay, <i>Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 – 2013)</i>.
Answered by Lord Wallace of Tankerness
South Yorkshire Police is currently conducting a number of investigations which relate to the period covered by the report. As these are ongoing investigations it would be inappropriate to make further comment. The CPS will consider all potential offences referred to it by the police in accordance with the two-stage test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.