Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Stewart of Dirleton on 6 April (HL7312), what assessment they have made of the judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States V. DB Group Services (UK) Limited (and Deutsche Bank AG) which found that the rigging of Libor interest rates was not against the rules.
Answered by Lord Stewart of Dirleton - Advocate General for Scotland
There has been no further assessment made on the judgment of the US Court of Appeal in these cases.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to a US appeals court overturning the conviction on 28 January of two Deutsche Bank traders accused of manipulating Libor rates, what plans, if any, they have to review the processes around investigating such offences in the UK.
Answered by Lord Stewart of Dirleton - Advocate General for Scotland
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is a specialist prosecuting authority tackling the top level of serious or complex fraud, bribery, and corruption.
In 2012, the SFO commenced investigations into Libor manipulation which resulted in nine individuals – all holding significant positions in their respective banks – either pleading guilty or found guilty by a jury.
Many of these convictions have been reviewed by the Court of Appeal and none of them have been overturned.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 6 December 2017 that she would write to the Director of Public Prosecutions (HL Deb, col 1051), whether she has done so; and if so, what was the response.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
I would refer his Lordship to the answer to HL4421 from Lord Pearson, which was tabled on 21 December 2017, a copy of which has been made available in the Library of the House.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government under what authority the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has agreed a definition of racially and religiously aggravated crime that is wider than the legal definition under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Criminal Justice Act 2003, as indicated in the CPS Public statement on prosecuting racist and religious hate crime published in August.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
In order to charge and prosecute hate crimes, the CPS uses the legal definition provided by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Criminal Justice Act 2003. The shared police and CPS definition of hate crime is based on the perception of the victim or any other person and allows for case flagging and monitoring as well as appropriate victim support, it does not affect the charge.
This flagging definition comes from the recommended definition in the Macpherson report which was published in 1999 as a result of the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The Macpherson Report found a lack of confidence within communities that hate crime was being treated seriously by the police and Criminal Justice System and recommended that the definition of a racist incident should be, ‘any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’. Putting the victim’s perception at the heart of the definition gives a clear signal that, once flagged as a hate crime, an appropriate investigation will follow and evidence to support the law on hostility will be proactively sought. The definition seeks to encourage victims to report and to increase confidence in the Criminal Justice System.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on freedom of speech of the definitions used by the Crown Prosecution Service to identify racist or religious incidents and crimes and to monitor the decisions and outcomes, as detailed in their Racist and Religious Hate Crime Prosecution Guidance.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The CPS legal guidance on prosecuting racist and religious hate crime recognises the potential impact of prosecutions on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to freedom of expression). The guidance recognises that not only is speech which is well-received and popular protected, but also speech which is offensive, shocking or disturbing. It is essential in a free, democratic and tolerant society that people are able to exchange views, even when offence may be caused. However, when making prosecution decisions the CPS must balance the rights of an individual to freedom of speech and expression against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has agreed a shared definition of hate crime with the police in order to ensure that all relevant cases are captured as early possible. This definition is based upon the perception of the victim or any other person and is wider than the legal definition. However, in order for the CPS to bring a successful hate crime prosecution the CPS must present sufficient evidence to prove that the offence meets the definition of the crime set out in the relevant legislation.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have issued any guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service concerning the extent to which insults constitute hate crimes.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
In order for an offence to constitute a “hate crime”, first a “basic” crime has to be committed. There are a number of such possible offences which can be committed by way of an insult, particularly offences under the Public Order Act 1986, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003.
Such offences could be designated as a “hate crime”, if they meet the required criteria for the three strands of hate crime offences – (a) racially and religiously aggravated offences; (b) homophobic, transphobic and biphobic offences and (c) disability hate crime.
The Government does not issue legal guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which is independent. The CPS hate crime guidance, which must be followed by all prosecutors, was reviewed and published in June 2017.