Attorney General

The Law Officers’ Convention applies to advice which may or may not have been given by the Law Officers, or requested of the Law Officers, and the Convention applies to your question.

The Law Officers’ Convention can be found at paragraph 21.27 of Erskine May:

“By long-standing convention, observed by successive Governments, the fact of, and substance of advice from, the law officers of the Crown is not disclosed outside government. This convention is referred to in paragraph [5.14] of the Ministerial Code [updated on 6 November 2024]. The purpose of this convention is to enable the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence.”

HMT’s publication of the 2026-27 financial reporting manual makes clear that a select group of smaller departments and independent bodies – which includes the Law Officers Departments - are exempt from the requirement to report efficiencies to HM Treasury in line with the Government Efficiency Framework. There are therefore no efficiency reports from the HMCPSI to HM Treasury, but the Law Officer Departments are all working towards their commitment at Spending Review 2025 to deliver at least 5% savings and efficiencies over Phase 2 of the SR period.

Section 26(2) does not create an offence relating to the purchase or acquisition of firearms using a false certificate. The offence most closely associated with such conduct is section 3(5) of the Firearms Act (FA) 1968, where it is an offence to produce a false certificate with the view of purchasing or acquiring any firearm or ammunition. Depending on the facts of the case, however, the CPS may charge these cases as a possession offence under section 1 or section 5 FA 1968. There may also be other offences considered depending on what the individual who purchases the firearms does with it.

The CPS holds management information which shows the number of offences charged by way of Section 3(5), Section 1 and Section 5 FA 1968 in which a prosecution commenced. The table below shows the number of offences charged by Act and Section in which a prosecution commenced between 2006 and 2025. The CPS is unable to differentiate whether the offences charged under section 1 or section 5 FA 1968 involved the individual using a false certificate; therefore, the information in the table below is for all offences charged under those sections of the FA 1968.

The figures relate to the number of offences and not the number of individual defendants prosecuted. It can be the case that an individual defendant is charged with more than one offence against the same complainant. No data is held showing the final outcome or if the charged offence was the substantive charge at finalisation.

The CPS does not hold management information on convictions by Act and Section and is therefore unable to provide the requested conviction figures.

The criticisms of misinformation on X are numerous and well-documented.

The CPS considers every case referred to it by investigators and will prosecute where the evidential and public interest tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors are met.

The Solicitor General supports the CPS in tackling serious financial crime across all sectors, including where offending occurs in the waste sector. This includes supporting cross-government economic crime reforms and investment in economic crime and asset recovery capability, helping the CPS and its law enforcement partners to prosecute offenders and recover criminal assets.

The Attorney General’s Office provides staff with access to a range of artificial intelligence (AI) learning and development resources.

These include the Civil Service Learning “AI for All” programme, AI-Understanding Ethics, AI Generative AI Tools and Applications, The business value of AI and Microsoft Copilot training and guidance.

a) Information on the total number of hours of AI training undertaken by staff is not held centrally. A range of AI learning opportunities are available to staff, with individual courses varying in duration.

b) The topics and skills covered by such training are:

• AI fundamentals and how AI is transforming the Civil Service and public service delivery.
• Practical AI skills and the effective use of AI in day‑to‑day work.
• Responsible and safe use of AI tools.
• AI ethics, including the risks and considerations associated with AI adoption.
• Generative AI tools and applications.
• The strategic and business value of AI, including governance, security, bias and data considerations.
• Microsoft Copilot skills, including prompt writing, use of AI assistants and agents, and safe use within government systems.

The Department also provides access to additional AI learning resources through LinkedIn Learning, Microsoft Copilot Academy and other approved learning platforms.

This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a backlog of eighty thousand criminal cases in the Crown court.

That is why we are investing over two and a half billion pounds in our courts. This will fund unlimited sitting days, boost legal aid, and ultimately speed up justice for victims.

This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a backlog of eighty thousand criminal cases in the Crown court.

That is why we are investing over two and a half billion pounds in our courts. This will fund unlimited sitting days, boost legal aid, and ultimately speed up justice for victims.

The Attorney General Office’s official account is no longer posting on X. The decision was taken to focus on other communication platforms that I believe are more conducive to public debate, and don’t prioritise misinformation. I understand and respect colleagues who remain on the platform.

Serious economic crime is a growing threat. Last month, the CPS published their Serious Economic and Organised Crime Strategy, which sets out their continued commitment to effectively prosecute these cases amidst the evolving nature and complexity of these crimes.

Ensuring crime does not pay is a core objective. Through asset recovery and financial disruption, the CPS is targeting the profits that drive serious economic and organised crime, depriving offenders of criminal benefit and helping secure compensation for victims.

I will continue to work with the CPS to ensure they deliver justice for victims and hold those who commit serious economic crime to account.

The Attorney General Office’s official account is no longer posting on X. The decision was taken by the Attorney General to focus on other communication platforms that he believes are more conducive to public debate, and don’t prioritise misinformation. The Attorney understands and respects colleagues who remain on the platform.

13 individuals were charged in relation to the Libor investigation. 5 were subsequently found guilty and convicted. The release of the information on investigations concluded without charges would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime.

SFO case records are retained in line with its retention policy. This specifies that case related material should be maintained for at least 7 years following case closure, or the closure of any related appeals. Some material may be held for up to 20 years if it were subsequently deemed as being of long-term interest, before being transferred to the National Archives.

The SFO’s investigations into Libor were conducted in line with accepted principles for investigating criminal cases. SFO case teams have access to detailed internal guidance to ensure a consistency of approach on its cases and decisions to charge are the responsibility of the Director in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

The judgement made in Tom Hayes’ and Carlo Palombo’s appeal to the Supreme Court regarding their convictions for manipulating Libor and Euribor was not based on flaws in the SFO’s procedures and the need for internal guidance, but that the directions given by the judge at their trials were incorrect in law. The court ruled that trial judges had misdirected juries by treating the question of whether a bank submission is "dishonest" as a matter of law, rather than leaving it to the jury.

The defences contention was that was that this removed from the jury an essential consideration of fact which ought to have been for them to determine. In quashing the convictions, the Supreme Court has indicated agreement with that view.

The SFO was not criticised in the judgment and carefully considers judgments of this nature, as part of its ongoing commitment to delivering effective and fair prosecutions

The judgement made in Tom Hayes’ and Carlo Palombo’s appeal to the Supreme Court regarding their convictions for manipulating Libor and Euribor was not based on flaws in the SFO’s procedures, but that the directions given by the judge at their trials were incorrect in law. The court ruled that trial judges had misdirected juries by treating the question of whether a bank submission is "dishonest" as a matter of law, rather than leaving it to the jury.

The defence’s contention was that was that this removed from the jury an essential consideration of fact which ought to have been for them to determine. In quashing the convictions, the Supreme Court has indicated agreement with that view.

The SFO was not criticised in the judgment and carefully considers judgments of this nature, as part of its ongoing commitment to delivering effective and fair prosecutions.

The Serious Fraud Office is an independent prosecuting authority. Its operational decisions, including whether to investigate or prosecute individuals, are the responsibility of the Director in accordance with the law. Where appropriate, the Law Officers will engage with the SFO at a strategic level to support effective delivery of its functions.

The SFO operates within a well-established governance framework, including accountability through the Attorney General’s superintendence functions and the appointment of Non-Executive Directors as set out in their Framework Agreement. Governance arrangements are kept under review in line with good practice, with the Framework Agreement being reviewed and updated in 2024.

We have taken ‘political appointees’ to mean special advisers. A list of special advisers by department is published each year in the Annual Report on Special Advisers which is laid in parliament. The Annual Report on Special Advisers 2026 will be published in due course.

The AI tool identifies solely the reporting and consultation duties, it does not specify whether they are ‘disproportionate’ or not. The policy development around this is ongoing; decisions on proportionality remain the purview of ministers.

The Attorney General’s Office has not engaged any external public relations consultants since July 2024.

The Crown Prosecution Service updated its guidance for prosecuting offences relating to the Assault on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 in June 2025. Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 | The Crown Prosecution Service.

The update ensures prosecutors consider the full range of available offences and adopt a more flexible, case by case approach to selecting the most appropriate charge.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) holds management information on offences derived from its Case Management System (CMS) and associated Management Information System (MIS).

CPS offence-level data can be used to report on the number of offences charged and reaching a first hearing at the magistrates’ court. However, this data does not include outcome information for specific offences.

Accordingly, the CPS does not hold centrally retrievable data to identify how many charges for Assault on an Emergency Worker were not proceeded with. To obtain this information would require a manual review of individual case files.

However, to provide context on the volume of cases involved, the table below shows the number of offences for Assault on an Emergency Worker which were charged and reached a first hearing at the magistrates’ court over the last five calendar years under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018:

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) holds management information on offences derived from its Case Management System (CMS) and associated Management Information System (MIS).

CPS offence-level data can be used to report on the number of offences charged and reaching a first hearing at the magistrates’ court. However, this data does not include outcome information for specific offences.

Accordingly, the CPS does not hold centrally retrievable data to identify how many charges for Assault on an Emergency Worker were not proceeded with. To obtain this information would require a manual review of individual case files.

However, to provide context on the volume of cases involved, the table below shows the number of offences for Assault on an Emergency Worker which were charged and reached a first hearing at the magistrates’ court over the last five calendar years under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018:

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not hold centrally retrievable data on the reasons for discontinuation at an offence level within its Case Management System (CMS) and associated Management Information System (MIS).

While the CPS applies the Code for Crown Prosecutors, including both the evidential and public interest tests, the specific reasons for decisions are recorded within individual case records rather than in a structured, searchable format.

Accordingly, the CPS is unable to provide the number of cases where the public interest test was cited as the reason for discontinuation in Assault on Emergency Worker cases. To obtain this information would require a manual review of individual case files.

However, to provide context on the volume of cases involved, the table below shows the number of offences for Assault on an Emergency Worker which were charged and reached a first hearing at the magistrates’ court over the last five calendar years under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018:

The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) uses Microsoft Copilot as its approved artificial intelligence tool. AGO staff are provided access to Copilot through arrangements managed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which provides IT services to the AGO.

The AGO does not hold separate contracts for Microsoft Copilot. As a small ministerial department, its IT services, including access to approved AI tools, are provided through the CPS as the AGO’s shared service provider.

The Government is committed to adopting artificial intelligence in a way that is transparent, responsible and accountable to the public.

The information requested can be found at https://questions-statements.parliament.uk.

The information requested is detailed in the following table:

* Full Time Equivalent

The Division’s staffing and budget (which covers staffing and wider operational costs) was increased in 2025-26 to strengthen its ability to recover criminal assets, including the creation of a new asset confiscation enforcement team.

The annual budget and total headcount for the Serious Economic, Organised Crime and International Directorate (SEOCID) for each of the years 2022-23 up to 2025-26 are as follows:

During 2025, my office reviewed more than 1,000 sentences. Of these, 14 featured youth sentences imposed for sexual offences. So far during the first half of 2026, my office has already reviewed 9 youth sentences for sexual offences, and we are set to exceed last year’s figures.

The ULS scheme continues to be effective by allowing the victims of the most serious Youth sexual offences to have a voice in the sentencing of their cases.

The Crown Prosecution Service does not collate or publish specific data on categories of offender such as individuals who have returned to the UK following participation in any conflicts overseas.

The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) does not permit civil servants employed in the UK to work from overseas.

Since the 4^th July 2024:

The AGO has bought no lanyards.

The SFO have bought 250 SFO lanyards, for a total cost of £251.50.

The GLD have bought 400 lanyards, for a total cost of £454.20.

The CPS have bought 3405 lanyards, for a total cost of £5,117.59.

Witnesses are eligible to apply for special measures to support them to give their best evidence during criminal proceedings.

Special measures, under the YJCEA, include:

• Screens to prevent the witness seeing or being seen by the defendant
• Video link to enable the witness to give live evidence from outside the trial courtroom
• Evidence given in private
• Removal of wigs and gowns to make proceedings less intimidating
• Video-recorded interviews used as evidence-in-chief
• Pre-recorded cross-examination
• Intermediaries to assist with communication
• Communication aids such as symbol boards

Special Measures play an important role in facilitating access to justice for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. The Crown Prosecution Service will support witnesses by making an application for the most beneficial special measures when it is appropriate to do so.

I refer the Hon Member to the Government’s statement and release of information on 1st June, providing an update on the response to the Humble Address. The documents published in the first and second tranches contain the entirety of the documents the Government has available for disclosure, except those being withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police.

The Law Officers’ Convention applies to advice which may or may not have been given by, or requested of, the Law Officers. It can be found at paragraph 21.27 of Erskine May:

“By long-standing convention, observed by successive Governments, the fact of, and substance of advice from, the law officers of the Crown is not disclosed outside government. This convention is referred to in paragraph [5.14] of the Ministerial Code [updated on 6 November 2024]. The purpose of this convention is to enable the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence.”

Indicating whether or not the Law Officers have recused themselves from a particular matter would itself breach the Law Officers’ Convention.

As has previously been set out to the house both in January 2025 and in June 2025, there is an established rigorous system in place within the Attorney General’s Office to ensure that a Law Officer would not be consulted on any matter that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest.

This process also sits alongside the established system in place for declaration Ministerial Interests. I confirm that my relevant interests have been published for the public record, including my previous employment at Matrix Chambers.

As has previously been set out to the house both in January 2025 and in June 2025, there is an established rigorous system in place within the Attorney General’s Office to ensure that a Law Officer would not be consulted on any matter that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest.

This process also sits alongside the established system in place for declaration Ministerial Interests. I confirm that my relevant interests have been published for the public record, including my previous employment at Matrix Chambers.

There have been no finalised prosecutions by the Crown Prosecution Service against defendants where offences of providing false or misleading information offences under Section 92 of the Care Act 2014 have been charged since it became law.

The Attorney General’s Office does not permit the use of external generative artificial intelligence tools of the type referenced in the Question, unless they have been formally approved and assessed as meeting the required security and data protection standards.

The CPS does not have any internal guidance relating to public commentary on public policy matters.

Whilst the Law Officers sit on the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, the Attorney General’s Office does not, itself, have legislation that falls within its areas of policy responsibility. Questions as to the commencement of legislation should be directed to the Government departments with policy responsibility.

The Office of the Advocate General, along with supporting the Advocate General as a Law Officer, is the Scottish legal team for other UK Government departments.  Decisions about the implementation of uncommenced legislation are made by the UK Government department with responsibility for the legislation in question

As has previously been set out to the house both in January 2025 and in June 2025, there is an established rigorous system in place within the Attorney General’s Office to ensure that a Law Officer would not be consulted on any matter that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest.

If a Law Officer were to publicly confirm specific matters where they were recused, this would infer that legal advice had been requested by the Government on a specific matter, which would risk a breach of the Law Officers’ Convention.

This process also sits alongside the established system in place for declaration Ministerial Interests. I confirm that my relevant interests have been published for the public record, including my previous employment at Matrix Chambers.