Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what the costs were of all external counsel in the case of R v Brewer and others.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) can only provide costs in respect of prosecution counsel.
The Case of R v Brewer and others concerns 15 defendants who were convicted after trial of an offence contrary to section 1(2)(b) Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 at Chelmsford Crown Court on 10 December 2018.
The case is ongoing and fees are only paid to counsel at the conclusion of the case. However, it is anticipated that the cost of counsel fees in this case, before the sentencing hearing, to be around £134,000. The case is a graduated fees case and therefore paid in accordance with that scheme. The figure is an estimate only and final fees will be subject to scrutiny in accordance with standard practices of the CPS.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to his power to grant his consent to a prosecution, whether he is required to make that decision in accordance with the 1972 Franks Committee memorandum criteria of (a) whether the charge is being brought in appropriate circumstances, (b) the five reasons for the requirement of consent, as set out in that memorandum and (c) the mischief at which the criminal law in question was addressed.
Answered by Robert Buckland
For certain offences, Parliament has decided that the Attorney General’s consent is needed to bring a prosecution.
The Home Office memorandum to the Franks Committee in 1972 gave guidance on the reasons for including a consent requirement when creating a criminal offence. It provided that the basic reason for including a consent requirement is that otherwise there would be a risk of prosecutions being brought in inappropriate circumstances and identified five broader overlapping reasons for including a consent requirement.
It is a constitutional principle that, when deciding whether to consent to a prosecution, the Law Officers will consider all relevant facts including why it is proposed to bring the prosecution and the mischief which the proposed offence was intended to prevent and apply the well-established prosecution principles of evidential sufficiency and the public interest test.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, on how many occasions he has agreed to (a) review and (b) reconsider his consent to prosecution; and on how many of those occasions he withdrew his consent in each of the last five years.
Answered by Geoffrey Cox
The Attorney General will consider requests to review decisions where new evidence becomes available.
However, the requested information would require the examining of AGO case files and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many times he has been asked to consent to a prosecution; and in how many of those cases he (a) granted and (b) refused consent in each of the last five years.
Answered by Geoffrey Cox
The Law Officers have received 705 applications for consent since 1 January 2013. Consent has been declined in 33 applications. Consent was declined on 14 occasions as there was insufficient evidence and on 19 occasions because a prosecution was not in the public interest.