Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Reform UK - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, on what specific date the Attorney General recused himself from discussions or decisions regarding the Government’s defence and settlement of Zubaydah v Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and whether he has had any communication with the Foreign Secretary, her predecessor, or any officials regarding this case since his appointment.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
Without commenting on individual cases, the government’s robust conflict process would clearly preclude Law Officers having any involvement in cases in which they were instructed for other parties prior to appointment.
By longstanding convention, recognised in paragraph 5.14 of the Ministerial Code, the fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised, and the content of their advice, must not be disclosed outside government without their authority.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Reform UK - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, what the average daily office attendance rate was for Crown Prosecution Service staff in the most recent quarter for which figures are available.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
The Crown Prosecution Service does not maintain a central record of office attendance rates. Office attendance is monitored at a local level.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Reform UK - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, when the Attorney General informed the Prime Minister of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ intention not to proceed with the prosecution of Mr Christopher Cash and Mr Christopher Berry.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
As you are aware, I was appointed to the role of Solicitor General on 6 September. The Security Minister gave a statement to the House on 15 September stating that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had taken the decision to not proceed with the prosecutions of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry.
Decisions to prosecute are, rightly, made independently of Government by the CPS. Once consent is granted, the CPS is responsible for conducting the case.
I had no input into or knowledge of the case being dropped until it became public knowledge.
The decision to offer no evidence was a decision made by the CPS, without any political influence, including by the Attorney General and me, as the CPS has already confirmed several times.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Reform UK - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, what steps she took to help prevent the non-continuation of the prosecution of Mr Christopher Cash and Mr Christopher Berry.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
As you are aware, I was appointed to the role of Solicitor General on 6 September. The Security Minister gave a statement to the House on 15 September stating that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had taken the decision to not proceed with the prosecutions of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry.
Decisions to prosecute are, rightly, made independently of Government by the CPS. Once consent is granted, the CPS is responsible for conducting the case.
I had no input into or knowledge of the case being dropped until it became public knowledge.
The decision to offer no evidence was a decision made by the CPS, without any political influence, including by the Attorney General and me, as the CPS has already confirmed several times.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Reform UK - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, on which date the Attorney General was informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the decision not to proceed with the case against Mr Christopher Cash and Mr Christopher Berry.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
As you are aware, I was appointed to the role of Solicitor General on 6 September. The Security Minister gave a statement to the House on 15 September stating that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had taken the decision to not proceed with the prosecutions of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry.
Decisions to prosecute are, rightly, made independently of Government by the CPS. Once consent is granted, the CPS is responsible for conducting the case.
I had no input into or knowledge of the case being dropped until it became public knowledge.
The decision to offer no evidence was a decision made by the CPS, without any political influence, including by the Attorney General and me, as the CPS has already confirmed several times.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Reform UK - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, how many people are prosecuted under s21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 each year.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Crown Prosecution Service holds data on the number of prosecutions where a charge has been authorised and reached a first hearing in the magistrates’ courts for specific offences.
The below table provides details of the number of offences charged under section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 in the last ten years.
2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 (up to end of September) |
5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Reform UK - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, whether the Attorney General has provided the (a) Permanent Secretary and (b) Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards a list of his (a) paid and (b) unpaid fees further to his past employment at Matrix Chambers.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
As I set out to the House on Thursday 23 January, and the Attorney General repeated in the House of Lords on Monday 27 January, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has an established and rigorous process for identifying and dealing with conflicts, and potential conflicts, that arise from the Law Officers’ past practice. That process predates the appointment of the Attorney General and sits against the backdrop of every lawyer’s professional obligation to be alert to, and actively manage, any situation that might give rise to a potential or actual conflict.
This rigorous process for identifying and managing conflicts sits alongside the system relating to ministerial interests, overseen by the Prime Minister’s Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards. Both the Director General of the AGO and the Independent Adviser were provided with the Attorney General’s list of conflicts following his appointment.