Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

That is a serious point, and I hope that Members will consider it. The question is whether the House was deliberately misled. Chilcot concluded that, although the intelligence may have been flawed and the House misled, it was not deliberately misled. Therefore, in my opinion, if the House tried to make any findings of fact and act on them, it would move away from those previous times when the instrument of a contempt motion has been used. When it has been used previously, there has been a finding of fact upon which the House has been able to act, meaning that someone has either been found guilty or admitted an offence. There has been no admission of deliberately misleading the House, so if the House attempted to make a factual finding, it would become a kangaroo court, because the person accused would not be allowed to represent themselves or speak. In my view, such circumstances would fly in the face of this country’s established principles of justice. Opposition Members are particularly interested in the Human Rights Act, and in article 6, on the right to a fair trial.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has pre-empted what I was about to say. It seems somewhat strange that some Members who rightly proclaim our need to adhere to the European convention on human rights should suggest a process that cannot meet article 6 requirements under any circumstances.

[Emily Thornberry]

I always get very worried when I agree so thoroughly with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I find it happening on many occasions. [Interruption.] I hear from a sedentary position, “You lawyers are all the same”, but we do agree on certain principles. Frankly, our concern is sometimes to ensure that our colleagues who are not lawyers understand these basic legal principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

It is interesting to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but that issue is one of speculation. In my view it is not legal to intervene in a country to topple a regime, and morally we should not intervene in a country unless we have some form of strategy to ensure that the country we leave is in a better state than when we first arrived.

[Mr Grieve]

When I was in government I had some involvement in the Libyan intervention, and from memory I do not think that there was a blinding of oneself to potential problems as a result of that intervention. We must also bear it in mind that the trigger for the intervention was the fact that Colonel Gaddafi was about to kill tens of thousands of his own citizens. That prompted the Security Council resolution that provided the legal basis for the intervention. That highlights—I will come on to speak about this—some of the really difficult decisions in those areas, where even questions of legality do not come into it. I certainly would not be willing to characterise that intervention as having been wrong in the circumstances that prevailed at the time.

[Emily Thornberry]

I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but my point is that, again, information was available and could have informed the intervention. Once the initial intervention had been made, what happened thereafter? How were manifest and obvious dangers protected against? I do not think that those important points were considered, and again we learn a lesson from Chilcot and Iraq that is so much more important that any form of soap opera regarding Tony Blair or not Tony Blair.

The other important issue is post-war planning, some of which has been touched on—this is my final point, Mr Speaker, as everyone will be glad to hear. Perhaps most devastatingly, Chilcot highlights the total absence of adequate planning for what would happen after the war and the long-term strategy for Iraq. If ever a mistake should never be repeated, it is the idea that we enter into another military intervention with no idea of its consequences, no plan for the aftermath, and no long-term strategy. And yet, that is the exact hallmark of all the outgoing Prime Minister’s interventions.

Again, we see the evidence in Libya. In the words of President Obama, the Prime Minister became “distracted”, and once the Gaddafi regime had been overthrown, the lengthy, arduous task of post-war reconstruction was all but ignored. In the years since, Libya has been riven by factionalism and violence. Its experiment with democracy was brief, with power in the hands of rival militias, and the ungoverned space that that created was an invitation for Daesh to establish a strategic foothold on the Libyan coast. It is a stain on this Government that they began to pay real attention to the mess they had left in Libya only once that terrorist threat from Daesh became too urgent to ignore.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

The case did not involve the Serious Fraud Office, but the Financial Conduct Authority. In the circumstances, that case is not a matter that I have had to discuss with the director of the Serious Fraud Office.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Yes, but the Attorney-General will agree that the rule of law means that no one is above the law. It is, of course, very important that those who commit complex fraud should be prosecuted as the common criminals they are. Will he not therefore take this opportunity to express his dismay at the fact that meticulous cases taken to court by the prosecuting authorities may be stopped because such people cannot be tried, because in turn they cannot be represented, because in turn there is insufficient legal aid? If the Attorney-General wished to have my support in his meeting with the Lord Chancellor to explain the rule of law, I would be very happy to help him.

[The Attorney-General]

As the specific case to which the hon. Lady refers is before the Court of Appeal and, therefore, sub judice, I will not comment on it. On the general point that she makes, I certainly agree that it is clearly in the public interest that alleged serious crime should be prosecuted. We will have to await the outcome of the case to see whether the resources that are made available in this instance are satisfactory.

John Downey

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

May I first make the point that it is clear from the judgment and the supporting material that the administrative scheme was not, and never could be, an amnesty? That might have been what the previous Government sought at one time, but an amnesty could be achieved only through legislation, and no such legislation was put through the House. Parliament never approved an amnesty.

This was an administrative scheme that operated independently of the Government and was intended to identify those individuals who, although they might believe that they were unable to return to the jurisdiction without fear of arrest, would in fact face no prosecution or arrest if they were to return. The PSNI would check whether individuals were wanted for arrest or for questioning. If the individual had already been considered for prosecution, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland would make a careful assessment of its files to determine whether any prosecution would follow if the individual were to return. Many of the offences were historical, and in some cases, with the passage of time, essential witnesses might have died or forensic evidence might be no longer available.

The test applied by the Public Prosecution Service and approved by my predecessors in office was not simply whether the evidential test was no longer met, but whether it could no longer ever be met. Only in those circumstances would an individual be told that they were free to return. The position was also conditional on no further evidence subsequently coming to light of involvement in an offence. As to what happened in this case, it is quite plain that a serious error was made within the PSNI in relation to the information that it collated and provided to the Government. So far as the number of letters is concerned, I think that the better course would be for me to write to my hon. Friend, as I would not wish to give a figure that subsequently had to be adjusted, even very slightly.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in paying tribute to the four soldiers from the Blues and Royals who were murdered in the Hyde park explosion and to the seven members of the Royal Green Jackets who were murdered on the same day in Regent’s park. Our thoughts are with their families, because they must be reliving their suffering all over again at this time.

I wish to make it clear that the Opposition completely understand and support the Attorney-General’s decision to proceed with the prosecution. We accept that the Downey judgment raises serious issues about how the scheme for dealing with on-the-runs, which, it must be and has been made clear, never offered immunity from prosecution to anyone, has been administered by successive Governments and agencies, and, in particular, about the role of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Can we be assured that we will be told how this grave mistake occurred and how we can be sure that it will not happen again? Can the House be told how many letters to the so-called on-the-runs have been issued since this Government took office? I understand that the Attorney-General will write to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), so perhaps he could copy me in on that letter.

Will the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland come to the House to make a statement once the investigations into this matter have been concluded? Perhaps the Attorney-General also shares my concern about the Prime Minister’s comments earlier this afternoon. I presume he has heard them. He may well agree with me that perhaps the Prime Minister misspoke and that it would be to the advantage of us all if the Prime Minister clarified exactly what he meant by them.

The sending of this letter was a terrible mistake, as was the failure to act when the mistake came to light. But this mistake, egregious though it was, does not discredit the Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements. Very difficult decisions needed to be made, and very important leadership needed to be shown and was required on all sides. Northern Ireland has been delivered from a past of violence and sectarian hatred to a place where there is power sharing between old enemies, and that is what is happening at the moment. The people of Northern Ireland will not lose sight of that and our resolve to make sure that this peace process works must not be diminished.

[The Attorney-General]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her supportive comments about how the CPS and myself approached this case. I think that she knows that an inquiry will be held, and questions for that should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That matter will be dealt with by the PSNI and the independent ombudsman. Clearly, answers will be needed as to what has happened. In addition, I entirely accept that the public will want to be reassured as to whether this is an isolated instance of a letter being sent mistakenly or whether there might be other such examples, in which case people will want to know what can be done about that. My understanding is that since the current Government came into office some 38 letters have been sent out. I hesitated to comment about what happened under the previous Administration, but once I have that information I will, of course, supply it. It is right to say that the person who had been charged, Mr Downey, denied responsibility for any role in this outrage.

The final comment I would simply make is this: the victims, including those who survived but were seriously injured, and their families are a matter that the House has constantly to keep in mind. The rule of law requires that those who are accused of grave crimes should be brought to justice, unless there is some overwhelming public interest to the contrary, and I have to say that in this case it was clear to me that the public interest was entirely in favour of seeking to bring this prosecution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

Yes, I have raised the matter on a number of occasions with both the previous and the present DPP. It would be best for me to write to my hon. Friend in respect of any statistics; they are not very easy to come by, unfortunately. One issue I often raise when I see some of Her Majesty’s judges on my visits to courts is a request for them to feed in to me any such examples rather than just to rely on anecdote. Nobody pretends that the CPS is a 100% efficient organisation, but I would like to take this opportunity to say that the last director left it in a much better condition than the one he inherited, and made substantial progress.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Does the Attorney-General recall that over a year ago, in relation to Hillsborough, I advised him to consider

“discussing with the DPP the value of instructing, at the outset, a senior and independent-minded Queen’s counsel to lead the review of evidence and the decision-making process on any possible prosecutions”?—[Official Report, 16 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 157.]

He now finds himself unable to discuss Hillsborough with the current DPP, as she previously advised no further action be taken on it. Indeed, the official she nominated is also compromised. With hindsight, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman now regret not taking my advice?

[The Attorney-General]

In circumstances in which a potential conflict of interests might arise, there are perfectly available mechanisms for my liaison with the Crown Prosecution Service to continue. I have every confidence that this matter is being dealt with appropriately. I am also satisfied that, if there is a need for liaison between my office and the CPS, it can be readily secured with the Crown prosecutor who is dealing with the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, but ultimately it is rather outside my remit. There are circumstances in which compensation can be paid to victims of crime, including from assets that may have been recovered. The Crown Prosecution Service and the SFO will operate according to the rules that are laid down.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The new director of the Serious Fraud Office has said that we should have a sensible debate about the introduction of the new offence of corporate criminal liability, so that companies could be prosecuted for fraud, as they are under the Bribery Act 2010. Does the Attorney-General agree that it is a good idea to have such a debate, or does he agree with some of his colleagues that instead of being built on, the Bribery Act should be watered down?

[The Attorney-General]

If I may say first, there is no question, as far as I am concerned, of the Bribery Act being watered down. It is true that the interpretation of the Act has at times given rise to difficulties, including unnecessary ones for businesses in understanding what it requires of them, so an educational process may be required.

On changing the rules on criminal liability, I am the first to recognise that it is an important issue and one that will obviously require major debate and consideration in this House. There are compelling arguments for why that should happen, but equally perfectly sound arguments have also been made about why it should not happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

My hon. Friend is right that the statistics for SFO cases were previously based on the number of defendants sentenced, rather than those convicted. Consequently, because the number of cases is very small, we can get huge statistical shifts simply by looking at it in a different way. That is why, as I explained earlier, I do not think that trends in the statistics are a good indication of performance. Overall, I prefer to rely on HMCPSI’s report.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

As the Attorney-General knows, the offence of misconduct in public office occurs when a public officer, without reasonable excuse,

“wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself… to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.”

Is he aware of any reason why the former director of the SFO, Richard Alderman, should not be investigated for misconduct in public office over the circumstances of his failure, as senior accounting officer, to obtain authorisation for payments to senior staff members of over £1 million?

[The Attorney-General]

As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, if it is thought that somebody has committed a criminal offence and it will be subject to investigation, that would not be a matter on which I could possibly comment in the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the CPS gets it references from the police, so unless a case is referred to it, it cannot carry out an investigation. It works closely with the police, however, both to improve the conviction rates for rape—it has been consistently successful in doing that for some years—and to encourage people to come forward by ensuring that the victim support process available provides reassurance that people will be helped.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Has the tragic suicide of Frances Andrade after giving evidence as a victim of rape not shown us that we have a system strewn with high-minded codes, pledges and guidance to victims that are brushed aside in practice? She was refused counselling and, as already stated, her PCC has said that victims will not and should not be referred for counselling until after they have given evidence. That is clearly in breach of the agreed code. Is the CPS in charge of these cases or not? It clearly did not know what was happening in the case of Mrs Andrade. In how many other cases has the victim not been properly supported and does the CPS simply not know what is going on? I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has stated that she will look into this and that the Attorney-General has stated today that he will too, but is it not time that we had a proper review that overarched all the agencies to ensure that we have a decent rape prosecution policy in this country, not one that just looks good on paper?

[The Attorney-General]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns, although I am not sure I entirely share the sweeping generalisations that she derives from them. As I said earlier, the evidence is that, under the last Government and the present Government, through the work of the CPS, the conviction rate for rape has consistently been improving. The House will want to bear that in mind.

On the very serious suggestions that Mrs Andrade was somehow misled, yes that is a matter of concern to me. As I indicated in an earlier answer, the information I have been given supports my view that both the CPS and the Greater Manchester police correctly advised her and recommended routes by which she could obtain counselling. The suggestion that some other organisation or police force might have said something to the contrary is obviously of serious concern and will be looked into.

RSPCA (Prosecutions)

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Attorney-General]

That may well be, but the point remains that the hon. Lady suggested that the CPS does not take on those cases. If a case is referred to the CPS by the police, it will be considered for prosecution, and if it passes the code test for Crown prosecutors, it will be prosecuted.

The RSPCA, on the other hand, is a private prosecutor when bringing prosecutions. It is an unusual set-up, but the right to bring a private prosecution in England and Wales is an ancient right, which has existed from the time when the state did not have prosecution authorities and citizens were required to prosecute cases themselves. That certainly was the position when the RSPCA was set up. Although most prosecutions are now conducted by public prosecuting authorities, the right to bring a private prosecution remains, preserved by Parliament in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

Speaking personally, I once threatened to bring a private prosecution when I was dissatisfied because the police were not taking action, which did at least lead to my getting a proper explanation from the police as to why they were behaving in the way they were. I believe that it is a fundamental and important right that we have in a free society. Private prosecutions allow an individual to bring a prosecution when the state, for whatever reason, does not. Prosecutions by the RSPCA are, however, just that—private prosecutions. It has no public or special status as a prosecutor. The RSPCA sets out, in accordance with its charitable aims and in its own literature, that it applies the full code test for Crown prosecutors. If I may say so—I do not mean this in any way pejoratively—that is a self-assertion. The RSPCA may well be correct, but it certainly cannot be independently verified, and it is in no position to do that.

To pick up on something that was said, I have no doubt that ACPO may well be correct in saying that were it not for the work of the RSPCA, the burden that would be placed on the police to investigate such crimes would be considerable. I am the first to recognise, as I am sure everybody in the room today does, that the RSPCA, through its charitable work, has performed an extremely valuable role in dealing with animal welfare and cruelty issues.

[Emily Thornberry]

Is it not right that the police go further than that? They actually say that no other public body would pick the work up, which takes that further and underlines the work of the RSPCA even more.

[The Attorney-General]

There must be no doubt that if the police do not feel they have the resources or expertise to take on that work, in those circumstances it might be difficult to do it, unless some other private body were to emerge. The point I picked up from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is that the CPS will take on cases referred to it and consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, in whichever context. The Serious Fraud Office is carrying out a major inquiry and investigation into the LIBOR scandal. The conduct of the investigation is obviously a matter for the SFO, but the matter has not been ignored.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The Attorney-General has referred to the report by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate. I have read it, and it says that the Serious Fraud Office needs to improve its performance and appears to be suffering considerable resourcing problems. Will he consider the suggestion by the director of the SFO that the agency be allowed to retain more of the proceeds of crime that it confiscates? Might that be a way in which it could increase its funding?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

Bribery and corruption are serious offences. Guidelines have been published to help companies in that respect, and I have every confidence that no company will be prosecuted unless it has committed a serious offence. I cannot, however, give an undertaking that the guidelines will not be subject to review. The guidelines will evolve over time, and they are just that—guidelines. Ultimately, it is for the director of the SFO and the Director of Public Prosecutions to make a decision based on an evidential test and the public interest.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago we were astounded to learn that the former chief executive of the Serious Fraud Office had received an unauthorised send-off of £440,000 for just two years in the post. Last week we learned that the outgoing chief operating officer struck a confidential deal similar to that offered to Ms Williamson. What is the scale of that second payment and can it be stopped? Who knew about both payments, and when? Is this negligence, incompetence, or a deliberate bypassing of the system? Finally, what guarantees can the Attorney-General give the House that he is no longer asleep at the wheel?

[The Attorney-General]

First, neither I nor anyone in my office was aware of the irregular payments that were made. They came to light subsequently on the appointment of the new director, and are a matter of great concern to me, as are all irregular payments. I am satisfied that the new director has put in place all necessary measures to ensure that such a matter will not occur again. The hon. Lady asked about dates. I would be happy to write to her so that she is aware of exactly when the matter came to light, although I am afraid I do not have that recollection in my mind at the moment. I will ensure that her point about the chief operating officer is also answered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

It is my understanding that there will be the opportunity for a debate on this matter next Monday, 22 October, which I believe will be led by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Obviously, I will be present for as much of the debate as possible to listen to what is said.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The Attorney-General’s statement is greatly to be welcomed, and the families had a very positive meeting with the DPP yesterday. All hon. Members hope that justice for the Hillsborough families is finally in sight. However, the Crown Prosecution Service faced criticism for failing to act 14 years ago when it was presented with evidence of the wholesale alteration of witness statements by South Yorkshire police and their solicitors. In order to build further public confidence in the process launched by the DPP last week, will the Attorney-General consider discussing with the DPP the value of instructing, at the outset, a senior and independent-minded Queen’s counsel to lead the review of evidence and the decision-making process on any possible prosecutions? Does he agree that such an additional check and balance would be helpful and positive?

[The Attorney-General]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I understand that she wrote to the DPP on 8 October, which I believe his office received last Friday, to raise some of those issues. I understand that she will get a reply from him as soon as possible.

May I reiterate that the DPP, under our constitutional system, acts entirely independently from myself, although I have superintendence. I am sure he will have noted the hon. Lady’s comments. The question as to how he best goes about conducting his operations within the CPS, bringing prosecutions or reviewing any matter that is historic, is a matter for him, but it is always open to him to discuss it with me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

It is clear that there will be close co-operation between the SFO and the National Crime Agency and its economic crime command. However, in setting up the agency we gave careful consideration to whether there was any point in moving the SFO into it, and the conclusion reached was that the SFO’s work was so distinctive that it did not fit naturally into the agency’s work, and so important that it should be maintained as a separate entity.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The Americans spend massive amounts of money on prosecuting fraud. Indeed, the increase in their budget this year is more than the total amount that we spend on the SFO. On this side of the Atlantic, we are cutting our budget by 25%. No wonder the bankers laugh at us. Too many people in the City believe that the rules apply only to little people and not to them.

While we welcome the additional £3 million for the prosecution of LIBOR offences which was announced in the Financial Times and which has been hastily gathered from the crumbs that have fallen from the Treasury’s table, we ought to note that it amounts to only 5% of the Barclays LIBOR fine. Is it not too little too late? Will the Attorney-General take account of the call this week from the Leader of the Opposition for the establishment within the SFO of a properly funded, dedicated banking and financial crime unit, recruiting the best and headed by a high-profile prosecutor, so that those fraudulent, thieving bankers can be sent to prison like the common criminals they are?

[The Attorney-General]

As the hon. Lady will know, the SFO and its directors have indicated that they have initiated a criminal investigation. At no point during the time for which I have had superintendence has it been suggested to me by any director of the SFO that they were not able to take on a case that they considered that they should be able to take on because they did not have enough funds to do so.

[Emily Thornberry]

What about LIBOR last summer?

[The Attorney-General]

What happened last summer was that the perfectly sensible decision was made that the Financial Services Authority should initiate its regulatory inquiry, and should liaise with the SFO while it was being carried out until the regulatory investigation was finished. When it was finished, the SFO considered the matter, and has initiated a criminal inquiry.

That said, I fully accept the hon. Lady’s point: it is possible that we could spend more money on the SFO. I should also point out, however, that within the totality of funding for prosecutorial functions in England and Wales, the level of funding for the SFO is similar to that which prevailed under the last Government—and it is not, of course, the only prosecutor of fraud.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

Yes, I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. When we first came to office I devoted some attention to the issue, and particularly to the balance between work done by Crown advocates within the service and that done by the independent Bar. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there have been some changes in the way in which that work is allocated, and I hope very much that the quality of both the work done by the independent Bar and that done in-house will improve as a result. The Director of Public Prosecutions takes this matter very seriously.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

On 6 April it will be four years since the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into force, but although between 250 and 300 people die at work each year—deaths which, according to the Health and Safety Executive, are usually avoidable—only two companies have ever been prosecuted under the Act. Does the Attorney-General know what is wrong, and if not, will he conduct urgent inquiries and make a statement to the House as soon as possible?

[The Attorney-General]

I shall be extremely happy to go away and seek the detailed views of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and to write to the hon. Lady and place the letter in the Library. I have discussed the matter with the DPP on occasion, particularly in view of my background as a health and safety practitioner.

Corporate manslaughter is the most serious offence for which people can be prosecuted, but prosecutions can sometimes be brought to cover similar sorts of offence within the health and safety laws. I know of no evidence to suggest that the Crown Prosecution Service is not correctly applying its approach to deciding when a prosecution for corporate manslaughter is appropriate, but in order to reassure the hon. Lady in response to what was a very sensible and pertinent question, I will endeavour to provide her with the information.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I have to try to work out where the right hon. Gentleman’s question is coming from, but the main complaint about the Babar Ahmad case is the length of time that it is taking. As he will be aware, proceedings started on 5 August 2004, and in this country proceedings, including the refusal of leave to appeal to the House of Lords, were completed on 6 June 2007. The problems and delays since then are in fact due to the European Court of Human Rights, and that ties in with my answers to earlier questions about the inordinate length of time that it takes to bring such cases to the European Court of Human Rights—with consequences, in the case of Babar Ahmad, that are plainly undesirable.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The Attorney-General may have read on 11 December in The Sunday Times, as I did with some interest, that the Government will be

“asking British magistrates to examine detailed evidence involved in each case”

and bringing forward plans to allow judges

“to order a trial in Britain if they considered it would serve justice better.”

Given that the House is committed to reforming extradition, are those the sort of changes that we are to expect, and when are we going to hear about them officially?

[The Attorney-General]

As the hon. Lady appreciates, the Home Office leads on the question of extradition. I indicated when I last took questions that the Government take the view that, first, they need to study the Scott Baker report, which they are doing, and then they will come to the House with proposals. I hope that that will be as soon as possible. In the meantime, I suggest to her that speculation in The Sunday Times is not always the best indication of Government policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 already goes some way in the direction of what he suggests. In addition to that, I know that the Law Commission is carrying out research into this area, and I look forward to seeing its conclusions on what changes to the law might be required.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The Attorney-General will recall that he once said about a case of bribery in Saudi Arabia that decisions balancing the national interest and the need to prosecute should lie with the director of the Serious Fraud Office alone. Indeed, as he has already said, there was cross-party support for Labour’s Bribery Act which enshrined that in law. If this is still his view, will he be instructing the Serious Fraud Office to proceed with a full investigation into the allegations by whistleblower Lieutenant Colonel Foxley of £11.5 million in kickbacks paid to senior Saudi officials? When does he expect to make a decision on the case of GPT? If he decides to stop the case, will he come to the House and explain why?

[The Attorney-General]

May I make two points to the hon. Lady? First, a decision on whether to investigate any matter—I am afraid I cannot comment on an individual case—is a matter for the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Serious Fraud Office itself. Secondly, if, in the course of such an investigation, issues concerning the public interest were to come to light that required my being consulted and any decision being made, I can assure the hon. Lady that I would come to inform the House of any decision that I took, particularly if any such decision at any time were in any way to override a decision of the director of the Serious Fraud Office, or if there was a public interest matter which led to the case coming to a conclusion other than that which one might have expected.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

When these savings were first outlined, the Director of Public Prosecutions and I gave very careful consideration to whether they could be achieved without reducing front-line services. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the plans centre principally on reductions in staff numbers at headquarters, recruitment freezes and the streamlining of services, particularly savings in IT services and elsewhere. For that reason, the CPS and the DPP remain of the view that it is possible to implement the budget reductions without affecting front-line services.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The concerns about the cuts to the capability of the CPS are matched by concerns about the capacity of the Serious Fraud Office, whose job is to investigate and prosecute cases of domestic and overseas corruption. Given those concerns, has the SFO been able to brief the Attorney-General on the case of 3M v. Boulter in Washington, which is a case of blackmail that allegedly involves the attempted dishonest settlement of a dispute between an American company and a subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence? Some may be aware that the case has arisen of a meeting at the five-star Shangri-La hotel in Dubai between Porton Capital’s chief executive Harvey Boulter, the Secretary of State for Defence and the latter’s friend Adam Werritty, at which it has been alleged that there was a conversation about $30 million and the taking away of a knighthood. Will the Attorney-General assure the House that the advice that he receives, and the action that is to be taken, will not be affected by cuts to the prosecuting departments?

[The Attorney-General]

May I first welcome the hon. Lady to her new post? I look forward to many opportunities to debate matters with her, and I congratulate her on her appointment. So far as the matter that she has raised is concerned, I simply make a couple of points. The SFO will examine cases that are referred to it, and as she will be aware, in any case that might have any degree of political sensitivity, by convention, proper steps are taken to ensure that the Law Officers’ role is kept to a minimum.

Ian Tomlinson

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Emily Thornberry

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the decision not to prosecute any police officer in connection with the assault and subsequent death of Ian Tomlinson?

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I wholly understand the reaction of the public and of this House to the news that the Director of Public Prosecutions considers that he cannot bring a criminal prosecution following the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s investigation into the death of Mr Ian Tomlinson in April 2009. No one who has seen the pictures of his treatment that day could fail to be disturbed by them. The facts were rightly and thoroughly investigated by the IPCC. In recognition of the strong public interest in understanding how that decision had been reached, last Thursday the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has responsibility, independently of Government, for the decision, made a detailed and lengthy statement explaining it. The statement is available on the Crown Prosecution Service website, and I have also asked for copies of it to be placed in the Library.

Once the IPCC has concluded its report, an inquest will follow into the death of Mr Tomlinson under the direction of Her Majesty’s coroner. The Metropolitan police will also consider whether disciplinary or any other action should be brought. It has to be remembered that the detailed statement made by the DPP did not purport to set out any defence that the suspected police officer would have advanced had the case come before a criminal court; it only centred on the evidential issues faced in any prosecution.

From the outset, the CPS and the IPCC approached this case on the basis that there may be evidence to justify a charge for manslaughter. Expert evidence was obtained with a view to establishing the cause of death. After the original pathologist, who was appointed by Her Majesty’s coroner, provided a second statement about his findings, the factual basis on which the other experts had given their opinions about the cause of death was seriously undermined. The CPS concluded that there was no realistic prospect of conviction for manslaughter.

It is not appropriate practice in possible homicide cases to bring a charge for a lesser offence such as common assault while there remains a prospect of a prosecution for manslaughter. But once it was clear that a charge for manslaughter was not going to be possible, the CPS turned to consider whether proceedings could be brought for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In law, a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm can be brought in respect of quite minor injuries. However, to bring a measure of consistency to charging decisions in assault cases the CPS applies charging standards. In the case of the G20 demonstration, for example, after a police officer struck a woman twice with his baton causing a similar level of injury, the CPS brought a prosecution for common assault applying exactly the same guidance. That officer was of course recently acquitted by the courts.

I understand the dismay of the House at the outcome of this case, which is that a prosecution will not be brought for any offence. That outcome was reached after an independent investigation of the facts by the IPCC and independent and thorough consideration by a senior and experienced Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor, with the added benefit of advice from independent leading counsel under the oversight and with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have seen nothing to make me doubt the seriousness and propriety of the decision-making process in this case.

[Emily Thornberry]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that if a member of the public had launched an unprovoked attack on a police officer that was immediately followed by the officer’s death, and if that incident was on film, a pathologist of highly dubious professionalism would have been appointed to investigate and that that pathologist would have been allowed to throw away samples that could have proved the link between the assault and the death? Does he also agree that it would be highly unlikely, even if one were to leave aside the evidence in connection to the manslaughter, that there would be no action on the assault?

We have all seen the film. The man was clearly assaulted. We have also, have we not, read Nat Cary’s evidence in which he says that there is an area of bruising consistent with being hit with a baton? As Nat Cary says, if that is not ABH, what is? How can the CPS have taken 15 months to come to no conclusion? It is not going to take any action. I suggest that that would not have happened if the tables had been turned and this shows that there is no equality before the law. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees, what is he going to do about it?

[The Attorney-General]

I should say at the outset that I think that the first part of the hon. Lady’s question is based on a slightly false premise. The appointment of a pathologist is a matter for the coroner, not for the CPS. The first pathologist appointed in this case was appointed by the coroner—he has the power to do that. The hon. Lady will be aware from what was said by the DPP and from what I said a moment ago that much flows from that appointment. It is clear that a report was produced that provided an indication to lead to further reports that looked as though it might lead to showing a causal connection between the assault and the death but that subsequently a further factual statement from the pathologist first appointed by the coroner entirely undermined the basis on which any further expert view could be taken of the case by other pathologists. That is at the root of the problem.

As for the hon. Lady’s suggestion that in some way this case would have been treated differently had it involved the death of a police officer, I have no reason to think that that is the case. It is right to say that when the matter was first drawn to the attention of Her Majesty’s coroner, it might not have been apparent at that stage—because the video evidence had not become available—that this was not a sudden death on the fringe of the G20 demonstration rather than something that was intimately linked to it, as became clear when the video evidence became available.