Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask His Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to applying universal jurisdiction as a means of bringing to justice those who have committed atrocity crimes, but have evaded prosecution in international courts or domestic courts in other jurisdictions.
Answered by Lord Stewart of Dirleton - Advocate General for Scotland
The International Criminal Court Act 2001 and The International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 allows jurisdiction over the offences of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed abroad by any person who: (i) is/was a UK national or UK resident at the time of the crime; or (ii) became a UK national or UK resident after the crime and still resides in the UK when proceedings are brought. Criminal law in the United Kingdom provides for universal jurisdiction over the crimes of torture and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, allowing prosecutorial authorities to investigate and prosecute these offences under certain conditions when they were committed abroad by foreign nationals. The relevant prosecuting authorities from across the UK will bring individuals to justice wherever possible, in line with their respective prosecutorial policies. Universal jurisdiction has been applied in the past in the UK, including in the case against Agnes Taylor who was accused of participating in crimes of torture during the first Liberian Civil War.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Stewart of Dirleton on 25 April (HL6969), how many requests to prosecute cases of international crimes were received by the Attorney General in the last five years; and how many of those were granted.
Answered by Lord Stewart of Dirleton - Advocate General for Scotland
The Attorney General’s consent is required for the prosecution in England and Wales of several international crimes. These include: grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, contrary to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957; genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, contrary to the International Criminal Court Act 2001; torture, contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988; and hostage-taking, contrary to the Taking of Hostages Act 1982. In the last five years, in relation to the above international crimes, the Attorney General’s Office has received one application for consent to prosecute. Consent was not granted. |
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many people have been tried by domestic courts for international crimes in the last five years.
Answered by Lord Stewart of Dirleton - Advocate General for Scotland
His Majesty’s Government does not collate statistics on trials in UK domestic courts for international crimes.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the UK's use of universal jurisdiction to prosecute the crimes of (1) genocide, (2) crimes against humanity, and (3) war crimes.
Answered by Lord Stewart of Dirleton - Advocate General for Scotland
The Counter Terrorism Division within the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is responsible for prosecuting core international crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes) and applies the principle of universal jurisdiction when necessary.
Universal jurisdiction helps to ensure that the UK does not provide a safe haven for war criminals or those who commit other serious violations of international law, and the CPS will continue to bring individuals to justice wherever possible. Any decision to prosecute offences of universal jurisdiction in England and Wales is governed by the same principles that apply to any other prosecution and must be in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar on 14 June concerning recent acquittals in the case of perverting the Court of Justice in relation to the Hillsborough disaster (HL Deb, cols 1668–71), what discussions they have had with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) as to why the decision of the Court was not appealed; whether the DPP gave advice on the decision not to appeal; and whether the DPP intends to publish the advice not to appeal.
Answered by Lord Stewart of Dirleton - Advocate General for Scotland
The decision not to pursue an appeal in these cases was made by the CPS team managing the original prosecution after seeking advice from senior counsel. Prosecution decisions are made independently from Government. The Director of Public Prosecutions did not provide advice on these cases.
To bring an appeal, the prosecution would have to be able to show that the Judge’s decision was wrong in law, that he had made an error about the facts or that his decision was otherwise unreasonable. After careful consideration, especially for the families involved, the CPS concluded that it could not meet this test.
On 26 May 2021, the CPS issued a public statement on this ruling and has confirmed publicly that the decision not to appeal was based on the conclusion that the legal test was not met.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar on 14 June concerning recent acquittals in the case of perverting the Court of Justice in relation to the Hillsborough disaster (HL Deb, cols 1668–71), whether they have discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) the reasons for not bringing charges in relation to misconduct in public office; and whether they have asked the DPP to publish those reasons.
Answered by Lord Stewart of Dirleton - Advocate General for Scotland
The CPS carefully considered the available evidence against a wide range of suspects but the Code for Crown Prosecutors only permits the CPS to commence a prosecution where there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and where it is in the public interests to do so. The CPS brought prosecutions where the Code Test was met. The CPS makes prosecution decisions independently from Government.
In June 2017, the CPS published a public statement following the decision to charge the three individuals with perverting the course of justice alongside other suspects referred for a charging decision at the same time.
On 15 June, the DPP appeared before the Justice Select Committee and outlined the reasons why the CPS did not pursue misconduct in public office charges. Charges of misconduct in public office would only have been available against two of the three defendants and, the CPS assessed that perverting the course of justice was the correct charge against all three. The conduct alleged would have been identical whatever the charge selected. The DPP’s evidence is publicly available on the Justice Select Committee website.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar on 14 June concerning recent acquittals in the case of perverting the Court of Justice in relation to the Hillsborough disaster (HL Deb, cols 1668–71), what plans they have to ask the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to revert to the practice of earlier DPPs of publishing their advice on their website.
Answered by Lord Stewart of Dirleton - Advocate General for Scotland
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) did not advise on these cases and there is no DPP advice to publish. Whenever appropriate the CPS will look to provide more detailed explanations about its decision making on its website.
Throughout criminal proceedings relating to the Hillsborough disaster, the CPS has issued regular press statements, and published reasons for its decision making. In particular, in June 2017, the CPS published a public statement following the decision to charge the three individuals with perverting the course of justice alongside other suspects referred for a charging decision at the same time.
On 26 May 2021 the CPS issued a public statement on this ruling and has confirmed publicly that the decision not to appeal was based on the conclusion that the legal test to do so was not met.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in cases blocked by the UK Courts’ extradition of alleged genocidaires to the countries requesting their extradition in order to prosecute them there, whether there has been any consideration of prosecuting those alleged genocidaires in the UK on charges of genocide under the principle of universal jurisdiction; if so, what were the challenges; and what has been done to overcome them.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
Before a prosecution can take place, there has to be a police investigation. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has no powers to investigate allegations of crime. The war crimes team of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command (SO15) is responsible for the investigation of all allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture. They decide whether an investigation is required and how it should be conducted. SO15 received a request from Rwandan authorities in January 2018 to investigate five individuals in the UK in relation to alleged genocide offences in Rwanda dating from around 1994. SO15 has not launched an investigation as it is currently assessing material provided from Rwandan authorities to determine whether it will be possible to carry out further scoping of the allegations.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many times the Crown Prosecution Service has charged individuals with the crime of genocide; and how many convictions were ultimately secured.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The Crown Prosecution Service has to date not charged any individual with the crime of genocide.
There have been a small number of prosecutions for international crimes by the CPS, including those of Anthony Sawonuik who was convicted of war crimes from World War II and Faryadi Sarwar Zardad who was convicted of torture and hostage taking as a result of offences committed in Afghanistan.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many times the Crown Prosecution Service has used (1) the International Criminal Court Act 2001, and (2) the Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009, on the basis of universal jurisdiction; what were those cases; and what were the offences the individuals were charged and convicted for.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The Crown Prosecution Service has to date not prosecuted any individual on the basis of universal jurisdiction for offences contrary to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009.
There have been a small number of prosecutions for international crimes by the CPS, including those of Anthony Sawonuik who was convicted of war crimes from World War II and Faryadi Sarwar Zardad who was convicted of torture and hostage taking as a result of offences committed in Afghanistan.