Serious Fraud Office

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I am today publishing a report carried out by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service into the quality of case management at the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

Tackling economic crime and complex fraud must be a priority and I wanted to ensure from the outset that the work of the SFO should be subject to independent inspection and that processes and practices are continually improved. I am grateful to the former director, Richard Alderman, for inviting the inspectorate into the department and for the current director, David Green CB QC, for taking the majority of the review work forward.

The report identifies a number of areas for improvement, and makes some very useful recommendations as to how casework can be handled more effectively to avoid problems that have been encountered in the past.

I am pleased that the director has accepted all of the recommendations and that the inspectorate will be returning to assess progress on implementing changes in early 2014.

However, I am also encouraged that the inspection team found that the SFO does many things well and that the direction in which the SFO is now headed is the right one. I agree with the chief inspector’s conclusions that with the new director’s focus on skills, quality assurance and mending stakeholder relations,

“the ground has been laid for the SFO to improve significantly the quality of its casework in the next two years.”

A copy of the report has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and can also be found on the HMCPSI website at: http://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk.

Reconsidering a Prosecution Decision (CPS Guidance)

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has today published revised guidance to prosecutors on the circumstances in which a decision not to prosecute or to terminate proceedings might be reconsidered and the procedure to be followed.

In a written answer of 31 March 1993 the then Attorney-General stated that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate for decisions not to prosecute or to terminate proceedings previously taken to be reconsidered. Two specific examples were given of where such reconsideration might be appropriate:

Rare cases where reconsideration of the original decision shows that it was not justified and the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system requires that a prosecution be brought notwithstanding the earlier decision; and

Those cases where termination has been effected specifically with a view to the collection and preparation of the necessary evidence which is thought likely to become available in the fairly near future. In such circumstances the CPS will advise the defendant of the possibility that proceedings will be re-instituted.

In those circumstances it was stated that the decision would be taken at chief Crown prosecutor level.

The revised guidance gives two new instances after which the decision to reinstate proceedings need not be taken by a chief Crown prosecutor:

Where the decision is taken to reinstitute a case where the police failed to send a file (digital or otherwise) in time for the first hearing at the magistrates’ court and the court refuses to allow an adjournment resulting in the proceedings being withdrawn.

Where the decision is taken by the CPS to prosecute after the police have previously decided to take no further action on a file but later refer the file to the CPS for a charging decision.

These are in addition to the two instances mentioned in the previous version of the guidance: where the original proceedings were discharged by a magistrate or district judge; and where the original proceedings were terminated after the decision was taken to withdraw transfer proceedings because the court had refused an adjournment.

A copy of the revised guidance has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Concurrent Jurisdiction (DPP Interim Guidelines)

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has today published interim guidelines to prosecutors on decision making in certain cases involving concurrent jurisdiction. The guidelines, which take immediate effect, follow a recommendation in the report of the review of the UK’s extradition arrangements by Lord Justice Sir Scott Baker that there should be more transparency about the principles that are applied by prosecutors in this jurisdiction when determining whether criminal proceedings should be brought here or in another jurisdiction.

The guidelines have been issued on an interim basis and are the subject of a consultation exercise that will last until 31 January 2013. The DPP will publish his final guidelines early next year, once he has considered the responses to the consultation, and any cases that have fallen to be considered by prosecutors during the period in which the interim guidelines have been in place will be reviewed in the light of the final guidelines if changes have been made.

The director of the Serious Fraud Office has indicated that his prosecutors will consider themselves bound by this guidance.

Copies of the interim guidelines will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The Freedom of Information Ministerial Veto

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I have today given the Information Commissioner a certificate under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) both as it applies for the purposes of the Act itself, and as it applies to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the Regulations”) by reason of Regulation 18(6). This certificate relates to the Upper Tribunal’s judgment dated 18 September 2012—Evans v (1) Information Commissioner (2) Seven Government Departments [2012] UKUT 313 (AAC). It is my view, as an accountable person under the Act, that there was no failure by the seven Departments¹ joined as additional parties to this appeal at the tribunal to comply with section 1(1 )(b) of the Act, or to comply with any obligation under the regulations, as a result of those Departments withholding the correspondence between the Prince of Wales and Ministers in the previous Administration.

The consequence of my giving the Information Commissioner this certificate is that the tribunal’s judgment, which anticipates that the Information Commissioner’s decision notices will be amended so that the documents identified in the tribunal’s judgment be disclosed, ceases to have effect.

A copy of the certificate has been laid before each House of Parliament. I have additionally placed a copy of the certificate and a detailed statement of the reasons for my decision in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

My decision to exercise the veto in this case was not taken lightly. I have taken into account the statement of Government policy on the use of the executive override as it relates to information falling within the scope of section 35(1) of the Act. Although that policy is not directly applicable to this case I have applied the principles in it in coming to my decision.

I have taken into account the views of Cabinet, former Ministers and the Information Commissioner, in considering both the balance of the public interest in disclosure and nondisclosure and whether this is an exceptional case. My view is that the public interest favours nondisclosure. I have also concluded that this constitutes an exceptional case and that the exercise of the veto is warranted.

In summary, my decision is based on my view that the correspondence was undertaken as part of the Prince of Wales’ preparation for becoming King. The Prince of Wales engaged in this correspondence with Ministers with the expectation that it would be confidential. Disclosure of the correspondence could damage the Prince of Wales’ ability to perform his duties when he becomes King. It is a matter of the highest importance within our constitutional framework that the Monarch is a politically neutral figure able to engage in confidence with the Government of the day, whatever its political colour. In my view, there is nothing in the nature or content of this particular correspondence which outweighs that strong public interest against disclosure.

A detailed explanation of the basis on which I arrived at the conclusion that the veto should be used is set out in my statement of reasons.

¹Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Department of Health, Department of Children Schools and Families, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Northern Ireland Office and the Cabinet Office.

Hillsborough

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

Following the publication of the Hillsborough panel report I have been considering whether to apply to the High Court for an order quashing the original inquests and ordering new inquests to be held. The High Court will have the power to grant such an order if I place before it evidence that persuades the Court that new inquests are necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

My consideration of the evidence is far from complete but, given the anxiety further delay may cause the families affected by the Hillsborough disaster, I have decided to take an exceptional course and state at this stage that, on the basis of what I have already seen, I have determined that I must make an application to the Court.

In doing so I should make it clear that further work will need to be done before any application can be made. In particular, there was not one inquest but 96. My current view is that I will apply to have every one of those 96 inquests quashed. I believe that these deaths, arising as they do from a common chain of events, should all be considered afresh. However, before reaching any final view on the scope of the application, I want to give the families affected the opportunity to make any representations in respect of the family member or members they lost. I will therefore be in contact with each family seeking views.

The application is not simply a matter of putting the Hillsborough panel report before the Court. The application will need to be fully prepared and the evidence that underpins the report’s findings will need to be carefully considered. I want the application that is made to be as persuasive as it can be. While I make this statement at this stage to reassure the families that an application will be made, it must be understood that there are legal as well as evidential issues to be considered. Although this work is being given a high priority, further time will be needed to prepare the application.

Guidelines for Prosecutors (Cases Affecting the Media)

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has today published his final guidelines for prosecutors on assessing the public interest in cases affecting the media. The publication of the guidelines follows a public consultation on the interim guidelines which was launched on 18 April 2012, Official Report, column 21WS. The DPP undertook to produce the guidelines when he gave evidence on 8 February 2012 to the inquiry being conducted by Lord Justice Leveson into the culture, practices and ethics of the press.

The final guidelines are broadly the same as the interim guidelines but they have been amended in a number of sections to reflect views and comments received during the consultation process. The guidelines set out the additional considerations which are relevant when prosecutors assess whether a prosecution is required in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. Each case will be considered on its own facts and on its own merits before a decision is made whether to prosecute.

The DPP’s Principal Legal Advisor, Alison Levitt QC, has looked at all current prosecutions and is satisfied that they are consistent with the approach set out in the final guidelines. Copies of the guidelines and the summary of responses will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

Freedom of Information

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

On 31 July, I gave the Information Commissioner a certificate under section 53(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). The certificate relates to the Commissioner’s Decision Notice dated 4 July 2012 (FS50417514). It is my view, as the accountable person for the purposes of section 53 of the Act in this case, that there was no failure by the Cabinet Office to comply with section 1(1 )(b) of the Act by withholding information contained in the minutes of the Cabinet discussions on 13 and 17 March 2003 concerning the military invasion of Iraq.

The consequence of my giving the Information Commissioner this certificate is that the Commissioner’s Decision Notice, which ordered disclosure of extracts of these minutes, ceases to have effect.

I was required to reach a decision in this case during the summer recess as a result of the statutory deadlines set out in the Freedom of Information Act. A copy of the certificate was laid before each House of Parliament on 31 July. I am making this statement to the House at the first available opportunity.

My decision to exercise the veto in this case was taken in accordance with the Act and the published Statement of Government Policy on the use of the Executive override as it relates to information falling within the scope of section 35(1) of the Act. In reaching my decision, I assessed the balance of the public interests in disclosure and non-disclosure of the extracts of the minutes and I considered whether this case met the criteria set out in that policy for determining whether or not this was an exceptional case.

It was my opinion as the “accountable person” in this case, as well as the collective view of the Cabinet, that (1) disclosure of this information would be damaging to the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility and detrimental to the effective operation of Cabinet government; (2) the balance of public interest favoured the continued non-disclosure of the information; and (3) this was an exceptional case and met the criteria set out in the policy on the use of the veto.

Having reached that conclusion, I decided to exercise the power in section 53(2) of the Act.

A detailed explanation of the basis on which I arrived at the conclusion that the veto should be used is set out in a statement of reasons which has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

This is the fifth time the veto power under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act has been exercised since the Act came into force in 2005, although this veto and another recent one (8 February 2012) followed previous vetoes by the last Government in respect of the same information. Since the Act came into force, central Government have released an enormous amount of information in response to FOI requests—including in July and October 2010 when the Government published Cabinet Office papers on the miners’ strike and the minutes of the Cabinet discussion of the Westland affair.

Interim Guidelines for Prosecutors on Assessing the Public Interest in Cases Affecting the Media

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has today launched a public consultation on his interim guidelines for prosecutors on assessing the public interest in cases affecting the media. The DPP undertook to produce the guidelines when he gave evidence on 8 February 2012 to the inquiry being conducted by Lord Justice Leveson into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. The guidelines set out the additional considerations which are relevant when prosecutors assess whether a prosecution is required in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. Each case will be considered on its own facts and on its own merits before a decision is made on prosecution. Such decisions are also likely to be finely balanced as prosecutors must carefully consider the public interest served by the journalist when set against the overall criminality.

The guidelines have been issued on an interim basis as they are the subject of a public consultation exercise that will last for three months. The DPP will publish his final guidelines later this year, once he has considered the responses to the consultation, and any cases that have fallen to be considered by prosecutors during the period in which the interim guidelines have been in place will be reviewed in the light of the final guidelines if changes have been made. Copies of the interim guidelines will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Departmental Prosecutions

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I have agreed with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Health arrangements between the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Department of Health (DH) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for the conduct of prosecutions.

Currently DWP and DH prosecutions are conducted by in-house prosecutions teams within those Departments. Under the forthcoming change, the conduct of such prosecutions will be assigned by the Attorney-General to the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 3(2)(g) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

The transfer will take place from 1 April 2012.

Transferring these functions will allow DWP and DH to draw directly on the CPS’ expertise and resources and to better accommodate fluctuations in prosecution volumes. Arrangements are in place to ensure partnership and accountability between the three organisations.

Kevin Williams

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on securing this debate and thank those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so eloquently about the tragedy that was Hillsborough.

Today’s debate has been prompted by the e-petition started by Mrs Anne Williams. She is the mother of Kevin Williams, whose short life was ended that day at Hillsborough. There is no hierarchy of victims; every loss was a tragedy for someone and I express my sympathy to all who lost loved ones on that day. Mrs Williams’s petition asked that her application for a fresh inquest into the death of her son be reconsidered. I have already indicated that I will do so.

It may assist people if I explain what I am being asked to do. After hearing what others have said this afternoon, I recognise that what follows may sound a little dry or legalistic. It is none the less necessary for me to say it, if what is being asked of me is to be understood.

The only way that a second inquest can be held into the death of Kevin Williams, or into the death of anyone else on that day, is if the High Court quashes the original inquest and orders a second inquest to be held. The Court will order a new inquest only if it is satisfied that the test that is set out in section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 has been met. Essentially, that test is whether a new inquest is

“necessary or desirable in the interests of justice”.

That test implies a wide discretion and it is necessarily fact-sensitive. An inquest determines who the deceased was and how, when and where they came by their death, as was so rightly explained by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester. “How” is not simply the medical cause of death but may include the circumstances in which the death came about. What justice requires in any case is that there has been an effective inquiry into the death and that the conclusions reached are supported by the available evidence.

For example, if it can be shown that an inquest was flawed procedurally or that new evidence has come to light since the inquest was held, and if that flaw or new evidence potentially has a significant impact on the conclusions of the original inquest, then a fresh inquest may be

“necessary or desirable in the interests of justice”.

[Mr George Howarth]

In the definition of what is a “flaw”, will the Attorney-General consider—I do not ask him to commit himself—including the existence of what many of us believe was an arbitrary 3.15 pm cut-off point?

[The Attorney-General]

Perhaps the best way that I can put it to the right hon. Gentleman is to say that I fully understand the points that have been cogently made today that raised criticisms about the 3.15 pm cut-off point, but, as he will appreciate, at this stage of the proceedings, I have only heard the explanations that have been provided. However, I fully understand the force that lies behind the argument that is being put forward.

An application to the High Court can only be made by me or by another with my consent. My role is to consider the available evidence and to determine whether there are reasonable prospects of the Court ordering a new inquest. I act as a filter, as Parliament has required me to do, and I should make it clear that I perform that role entirely independently of anyone else in Government. I have given some thought to how I should set about this task and I will, of course, consider it further in the light of the points that have been made in this debate today.

Mrs Williams has made four previous applications to my predecessors in office—predecessors in the two major parties that have been in Government. On each occasion, the application was refused as the Attorney-General of the day did not consider there was any reasonable prospect of a court being satisfied that a fresh inquest was necessary. There are undoubtedly difficulties. The matter has already been considered by the divisional court in 1992, which looked at many of the issues that had been put forward as reasons for a new inquest. That court refused to quash the original inquest and indicated that it did not consider it at all likely that the court would reach a different view had it been considering an application made under section 13. There has also been the inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor, as he then was, and the later review by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, whose findings argued against the need for a new inquest.

Later this year, the Hillsborough panel will release the information it has collected about the disaster and publish its report. For the first time, Mrs Williams and the other families of the deceased will have access to all—I stress all—relevant material, including the material held by my own office in respect of the discussions that took place with previous Attorneys-General. I am minded, therefore, to approach the case by awaiting the release of that material rather than simply by reviewing the material evidence that formed the basis of the applications already considered by my predecessors in office. This means that it will be necessary for me to delay reaching any conclusion until such time as the Hillsborough panel has released the collected material and there has been sufficient time for the families to be able to consider it carefully.

If I were to try to reach a decision sooner, I could ask to see the material that the panel holds now, but I will not do that for three reasons. First, I do not want to distract the panel or do anything to delay the completion of its work, which I hope will take place shortly. Secondly, I do not want to go behind the promise given, which I think important, that the families should see the material first. Thirdly, I want to give Mrs Williams, or indeed any other applicant, the time to consider the released material and make any representations that they may wish to make to me in respect of it.

I acknowledge that taking this course will affect the timing of my decision as to whether to make an application for a second inquest, and I am of course prepared to consider any representations that Mrs Williams or any other interested party—or, indeed, their Members of Parliament—may wish to make to me on timing.

[Robert Flello]

We have only eight minutes left, but will the Attorney-General consider making a statement to the House once he has had a chance to look at further evidence and what has come from the panel, and will he have discussions with Mrs Williams and others? Will he come to the House and present his thoughts?

[The Attorney-General]

I will certainly consider doing so, as I have done in the past. If I come to a conclusion, I would certainly want the House to know what that conclusion is, and I would want the House to understand the reasonings. If it were indeed to be the case that I was going to make an application to the High Court, my reasonings would probably be very brief. If for any reason it were to be the case that I was not to be making an application to the High Court, I would want the House to understand, and indeed the public to understand, why I had come to that conclusion. The reality is that I think it would be inescapable, and indeed proper, that the House would require my attendance to answer questions whether I wished to make a statement or not. For that reason, without anticipating where I will be in respect of this matter, I would be rather surprised if I were not coming to make an oral statement to the House. History has shown that it is a better way of proceeding, particularly in terms of giving adequate notice to the Opposition of what I am going to say beforehand so that we can have a reasoned exchange of views based upon it. I promise that I will keep the hon. Gentleman, and indeed my shadow in this matter, informed of how I am proceeding in respect of it.

It seems to me at least that the Hillsborough panel’s work provides an opportunity to allow for a more informed examination of the evidence. That is going to be very important. My understanding is that not only will it sift through material and make sure that it is presented, but that there will be an ability to direct attention to areas of material that might be seen to be relevant if there is to be further consideration. For that reason, to explain further my rationale behind wishing to wait for the panel’s report rather than just plunging into this material myself, it seems sensible for me to be informed by the panel’s own deliberations.

I will make another point about my work. It is probably not greatly understood, but my office is a very small one. I have a small and dedicated team of lawyers working with me, and I have one deputy Minister, the Solicitor-General. I am afraid it is not the case in matters of this sort that suddenly dozens of people can be let loose on material and we rapidly come to conclusions. That said, I am perfectly aware that after the length of time that has elapsed, there is a real need to try to bring this matter, if I am reconsidering it, to a conclusion. I will be mindful of that, but I will have to ask hon. Members to bear with my office in terms of our ability to manage our workload in what I anticipate is likely to be the sifting of substantial quantities of material. I think quite a lot will be in existence.

[Robert Flello]

I understand the constraints that the Attorney-General’s office has upon it, but given the importance of this matter not only to the House but to the nation, if he finds that he is in a position in which he needs more resources to undertake that work, will he come to the House and ask for that provision?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

I would certainly do so if I felt it necessary. We seem to manage a pretty heavy workload reasonably well. Some things come in as emergencies and some things we consider at greater leisure. If I felt that I was not able to discharge my responsibilities more generally, I would certainly bring that to the attention of my colleagues in Government. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman about that. I have no reason to suppose that this is going to take an inordinate length of time. I want to make that clear. I simply wanted to stress the point, because people would not necessarily understand that mine is not a large Department with large numbers of people who can suddenly be tasked on to a particular role.

I will make one final point. No one can fail to be moved by what happened on that fateful day in April 1989 that still resonates so powerfully among so many people. That is perfectly apparent to me having listened to the debate today and having read the debate—I was not able to be present—that took place in October. I found it illuminating in helping me to understand the concerns, which have been further voiced today.

I am only too well aware of the strength of feeling that this House holds about the tragic and needless deaths of so many men, women and children. Not only did that day—a day that promised only the entertainment of an FA Cup semi-final—go so badly wrong, the pain was undoubtedly compounded by unforgivable calumnies published about those who tried to help the injured and the dying. As a man and as a Minister, I share those feelings. As Attorney-General, in which role I am here today, I cannot let sympathy alone sway any decision I may reach. As Attorney-General, in performing this function, as I explained earlier, I act wholly independently of Government and must reach my decision based on the evidence alone. What I can promise the House, and do promise, is that I will approach this case with an open mind and, if I conclude that the evidence supports an application to the court, I will ensure that an application is made.