Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Garnier]

112: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Compensation for victims of fraud and other economic crimes(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences.(2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to identify how victims of such economic crimes could be better compensated without such victims needing to pursue civil action.(3) The Secretary of State must provide for a public consultation on the review.(4) In this section “victims of economic crime” includes United Kingdom and overseas victims of complex corruption cases where the harm caused by the offending is not easily quantifiable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is grouped with an amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Unfortunately, she cannot be here, so noble Lords will have to deal with me, and I hope I will not detain the Committee very long. I should declare an interest in that I am a barrister in private practice and some of the work that I do involves fraud, bribery and money laundering offences; at least, some of the clients I represent sometimes become involved in that sort of thing. Sometimes, I act for the Serious Fraud Office in prosecuting and dealing with those accused or thought to have been guilty of such things.

The new clause set out in Amendment 112 is designed to require a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation. The terms of the new clause are set out on the amendment paper, so I shall not read it out: it is there for those interested to see.

Just before Christmas last year, in December 2023, a company called Entain entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Crown Prosecution Service in response to allegations, which it admitted, that part of Entain had failed to prevent bribery in, most often, Turkey, over a seven-year period. The deferred prosecution agreement that Entain, formerly Ladbrokes, agreed to contained terms which included that it should pay a penalty and a disgorgement of profits of £585 million, plus a charitable donation of £20 million. Prior to that, in the decade or so before the Entain case, multinational companies were fined more than £1.5 billion after investigations by the Serious Fraud Office into corruption abroad, but only 1.4% of those fines, about £20 million, was used to compensate victim countries, according to research by the law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain and, in particular, due to the hard work of Mr Sam Tate, a partner of that firm, who, with others in the firm, has made a particular study of this pattern. It seems to me that companies that are convicted in this country of offences which have an effect overseas should be required to compensate their victims overseas—we need to change that.

Much of the corruption involved in these cases has occurred in African countries that are already suffering terrible economic hardship from food and energy crises and from inflation. They are in dire need of economic support to repair the damage caused by corruption. Our own Government have been vocal in their support for compensating foreign state victims of corruption, but the action taken to compensate them tells a different story and, if I may say so, leaves us open to charges of hypocrisy.

Most corruption cases brought before the English courts involve foreign jurisdictions. Therefore, this country is stepping in as the world’s policeman and prosecuting crimes that take place in other countries but keeping all the fines for the Treasury here in the United Kingdom. That is important because corruption causes insidious damage to the poor and the not so poor, particularly in emerging markets. The United Nations has said that it impedes international trade and investment, undermines sustainable development, threatens democracy and deprives citizens of vital public resources. The African Union estimated that in 2015, 25% of the continent’s gross domestic product was lost to corruption. Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should, I suggest, be ordered to compensate the communities they have harmed; that would be both just and effective. Compensation should come through investment in programmes targeted at decreasing corruption and benefiting local communities by, for example, building and resourcing more schools or hospitals.

At first glance, English law encourages compensation. It is required to take precedence over all other financial sanctions—so far, so good—but as with many noble ambitions, problems lurk in the detail. Compensation is ordered in criminal cases only where the loss is straightforward to assess, even though the trial judge is usually of High Court or senior Crown Court level—that is to say, judges who deal with complex issues every day. Let me give the Committee a couple of examples.

In October 2022, Glencore, the international mining and minerals extraction company, pleaded guilty to widespread corruption in the oil markets of several African states. I interpose here to say that in that case, now long over, I represented the applicant state seeking compensation. Glencore pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay £281 million in penalties and further orders, but not a single penny has been ordered to go back to the communities where the corruption happened, because it was held that compensation would be too complicated to quantify and the overseas state applying for compensation had no legal standing in the case. You could say that I was very lucky to be allowed to speak at all during the proceedings, because the statute says that the people who have the legal standing to make an application to deal with compensation are the prosecutor and the defendant company, and I was not representing either of them. None the less, the judge was kind enough and polite enough to let me advance my submissions to him. He rejected them because the statute prevented his acceding to my application.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope this provides my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier the reassurance that is needed to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, of course I will beg leave in a moment or two to withdraw my amendment. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his ability, at very short notice, to deal very elegantly with what I would describe as a long hop. The short point is one I made earlier on—that only 1.4% of the value of fines raised in this country has found its way back, under the mechanisms that he refers to, to victims’ estates. That is not enough. That said, I thank him for his offer of a meeting, which I would certainly like to take up, if I may. I thank my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for his support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his very thorough response to my suggestions in Amendment 112, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his kind remarks.

The reason why I metaphorically doffed my hat at the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, a moment ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Marks, accused me of being the pioneer of deferred prosecution agreements, is because, yes, as a matter of policy, as a Government Minister at the time, I suppose I was responsible for it. I take some pride in it. However, I could not have achieved it without the co-operation of the senior judiciary. From memory, the noble and learned Lord was president of the Queen’s Bench at the time when the late, much-lamented Lord Judge was the Lord Chief Justice. The two of them, with other members of the senior judiciary, dealt with it impeccably as a matter of legal process. They were not in the least bit interested in the politics—neither was I, actually. We were all interested in trying to make the DPA system work. Thanks to cross-party support in the other place and throughout government, and support from the senior judiciary, the deferred prosecution agreement system came in through statute. I am very grateful to all those who helped with that.

I am in danger of going to the church by way of the moon. This is quite an important subject. It needs thought and proper development. Some ideas need to be tested to destruction, but some need to be given a chance—perhaps through a meeting with my noble friend on the Front Bench and others at the Ministry of Justice—to see which parts of this idea are worth germinating. In the light of all that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 112 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I signed this amendment, and it is a rerun for me, as I had similar amendments in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Most of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has put forward responded to what the Minister said from the Dispatch Box during the passage of that Bill. These two amendments have been tightened to focus on the real areas of concern. One is not just to inform victims, but also their families; the second is to ensure that the time limit in exceptional circumstances could be extended.

Prior to laying previous amendments, I met Tracey Hanson, whose son Josh Hanson was murdered in 2015. After her son’s killer was sentenced in 2019, no agency made her aware that she was able to appeal the sentence under the ULS scheme. It was only when she approached Claire Waxman, the London Victims’ Commissioner, on the 28th day following the sentencing, that she was made aware of the scheme. Nobody in the system connected with the case contacted her. She was family, obviously not the victim. She submitted her application to the Attorney-General’s Office on the 28th day—that same day—at 8.40 pm. However, this was rejected because it was outside of court hours. At the time, there was no mention of office hours or court hours within the victims’ code or on the Government’s website. Tracey has campaigned for reforms to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, asking for the 28-day time limit to be given flexibility in certain circumstances, such as when the victim or their family is not informed of the scheme. She asked that the scheme be referenced in the judge’s sentencing remarks.

It is worth noting, though, that this still requires statutory responsibility for an agency to communicate those remarks to the victim. Can the Minister respond again—it was not him before; it was his predecessor—to see how we can smooth the journey for victims and families as they go through the judicial process? This particular case is really egregious in having an inflexible time limit for victims and families and yet a flexible one for convicted offenders.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to take much time. I understand, and indeed sympathise with, the thrust of the remarks of my noble friend and the intention behind his amendment. I am sure it is a good idea for people to know about the unduly lenient sentence scheme, particularly if they are victims. In my experience as a law officer who had to deal with these when I was in office, there did not seem to be any lack of knowledge among the people affected by what they thought were unduly lenient sentences, and we had plenty of applications to us in the law officers’ department to consider them. I say in brackets that, as often as not, not every crime or offence qualifies to come within the scheme. A degree of education needs to be made available in order that the public should realise that not every offence that they read about in the newspapers comes within the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Part of the object of the amendments is to ensure that the scheme is published and explained. That is one of the reasons why there is a reference to making sure that, in the judge’s sentencing, he or she refers to the scheme, and then victims and families can be provided with information as they leave the court, or it can be sent to them if they are not there.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I cannot quite see the wording that the noble Baroness refers to, but I am not sure I think it a good idea for a judge, having promulgated a sentence, then to say, “If anyone doesn’t think I’ve given them enough, perhaps you’d like to complain”. The judge must make his or her own mind up, based on the information in front of them, and do justice in that particular case. If the prosecutor, a witness, the victim or a member of the public wishes to say that that is unduly lenient, they can write to the law officers and see what their consideration of the matter is.

I agree with publicity and with educating everybody about what the system is about. However, I do not agree with encouraging everybody to run to their Member of Parliament, the newspapers or the law officers because they wish the sentence had been different. That way leads to disappointment, quite apart from a bureaucratic mess in the law officers’ department—which is a very small department.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I raise an issue with regard to the time limit. It is not from the wording of the amendment, which I support, but the wording in the victims’ code. At the moment it says that, first:

“The Attorney General must consider the matter as soon as possible”.


What does that mean? Secondly, it says that they must do so

“no later than the 28th calendar day after the sentence was imposed … in business hours and”—

I emphasise this—

“with sufficient time for consideration”.

How can the victim know how long the Attorney-General needs before the 28 days runs out? It is a hard cut-off, but with something rather woolly leading up to it. The victims’ code could do with a little revision to make it quite clear, in addition to the points that my noble friend has made and the very tough example that she gave, just how this would operate. I would not know, to meet that condition, how long before the end of the 28 days I should get a note through the Attorney-General’s door.