Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, whether the Law Officers have met with (a) Dominic Grieve and (b) the members of the Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia to discuss the working group and the definition of Islamophobia.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
The Law Officers have not met with Dominic Grieve or the members of the Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia, to discuss the Working Group or the definition of Islamophobia.
The Law Officers have previously met with Dominic Grieve on matters unrelated to the Working Group.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, whether the Attorney General has appointed a special advocate in relation to the Chinese Embassy called-in planning application and public inquiry.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
The Attorney General has not been asked to appoint a special advocate.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, pursuant to the Answer of 16 May 2025 to Question 50518 on Government Departments: Legal Opinion, if she will publish a copy of the 2022 version of the guidance.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
I will ensure that a copy of the 2022 version of the legal risk guidance is placed in the library shortly.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, pursuant to the Answer of 25 April 2025 to Question 45656 on Government Departments: Legal Opinion, for what reason changes were made to the previous edition; and if she will publish the previous edition.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
In November 2024, the Attorney General issued amended guidance for assessing legal risk across government to raise standards for calibrating legality and to ensure government lawyers can give full and frank advice to the Government.
The updated legal risk guidance is focused on supporting Ministers in making policy and operational decisions.
It does not give government lawyers any form of veto – decisions are for policymakers – a point the Attorney General’s guidance makes plain in express terms and a point the Attorney General has made clear publicly.
Many elements remain unchanged from previous versions of the guidance, and it retains the same three elements of the risk assessment.
All versions of the legal risk guidance were published at the time they were amended.
The 2015 version remains available here: Legal_Risk_Guidance_-_Amended_July_2015.pdf.
The 2022 version of the guidance is not currently available, but the Attorney General’s Office can provide a copy.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, if she will publish the most recent guidance issued by the Government Legal Service guidance to Departments on legal risk.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
The Attorney General’s Guidance on Legal Risk was last updated on 6 November 2024. It can be found here: Guidance: Attorney General's Guidance on Legal Risk - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many referrals the CPS received from the National Crime Agency for charging decisions under the Money Laundering Regulations in each of the last three years.
Answered by Alex Chalk
The number of referrals the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Specialist Fraud Division (SFD) has received from the National Crime Agency (NCA) for charging decisions under the Money Laundering Regulations for the last three years are as follows:
CPS data is available through its Case Management System (CMS) and associated Management Information System (MIS). The CPS collects data to assist in the effective management of its prosecution functions. The CPS does not break down figures that constitute official statistics as defined in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007.
However, the CPS is not able through either CMS or MIS to breakdown referrals to differentiate whether they were made by the police or other investigative organisations in England and Wales. On this occasion we have been able to provide the data because of a recent manual review, so whilst we have endeavoured to produce figures that are as accurate as possible, this data is subject to human error.
The official statistics relating to crime and policing are maintained by the Home Office and the official statistics relating to sentencing, criminal court proceedings, offenders brought to justice, the courts and the judiciary are maintained by the Ministry of Justice.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many (a) company self-referrals, (b) whistleblower, (c) victim, (d) professional advisory, (e) competitor and (f) other referrals have been made to the Serious Fraud Office in each financial year between 2015-16 and 2020-21.
Answered by Alex Chalk
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) receives a large number of reports and referrals from multiple different sources relating to a wide range of offences. Whistleblower referrals have been routinely published in the SFO Annual Report on Whistleblowing Disclosures since 2017. The figures are set out below:
The SFO does not hold a detailed breakdown of the number of referrals within each of the other categories requested. However, the total number of all other referrals made to the SFO within the time period requested are set out below:
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the decision making process within the Serious Fraud Office on whether to open, continue or close a criminal investigation into a corporate entity.
Answered by Michael Ellis
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has robust assurance processes in place to ensure effective decision-making on whether to open, continue, or close a criminal investigation into a corporate entity. This includes the SFO’s Case Evaluation Board (CEB) and Case Review Panels (CRPs), both of which are chaired by the SFO General Counsel.
The CEB reviews intelligence submissions against the Director’s Statement of Principle and assesses strategic and tactical risks, costs, and resource implications to make an informed recommendation to the Director on whether to initiate or decline an investigation. CRPs seek to scrutinise all cases at least twice a year to ensure that sound judgement and appropriate investigative and legal expertise are being used in cases, and that cases are progressing appropriately and comply with all relevant legal and operational guidance.
While the SFO exercises independence in its individual casework decisions, I am regularly updated by the Director and her senior leadership team on the SFO’s casework.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what the Serious Fraud Office’s conviction rate was for (a) individuals and (b) corporations in 2020-21.
Answered by Michael Ellis
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO), by its specialist nature, takes on a relatively small number of large, complex economic crime cases which can take several years to investigate. This means that small changes in case numbers can lead to significant fluctuations in in the SFO’s conviction rate.
Against this context, in 2020-21 the SFO’s conviction rate for individuals was 67 percent, which included three convictions in the $1.7bn Unaoil bribery case and one guilty plea in the Petrofac bribery case. No corporations were brought to trial in 2020-21. The SFO also secured two Deferred Prosecution Agreements against corporates in 2020-21, returning £47.4m in fines and penalties to the UK taxpayer and compelling these organisations to reform.
Asked by: Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative - Thirsk and Malton)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, whether he has had a discussion with the Director of the Serious Fraud Office on a renewal or extension to the five-year appointment to that post.
Answered by Michael Ellis
I have had no discussions with the Director of the Serious Fraud Office on a renewal or extension to the five-year appointment to that post, which is not due to come to an end until August 2023.