Asked by: Peter Bottomley (Conservative - Worthing West)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, if he will set out the inaccuracies known to the CPS and to the prosecuting barrister which were made by the complainant in the criminal prosecution of Gurpal Virdi.
Answered by Jeremy Wright
As my Right Honourable Friend will know, the CPS makes all its prosecution decisions independently and therefore I am unable to intervene on an individual case.
I do however understand that the CPS has previously written to, and met with, the Hon. Member and fully discussed the decision making in this case and the evidence on which the prosecution based its case.
Asked by: Peter Bottomley (Conservative - Worthing West)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Ministerial Correction of 24 June 2016 to Question 40180, on Gurpal Virdi, how many statements of fact by the complainant were contradicted by (a) Tom Makins and (b) police or court records; and which police or court records confirmed the age of the complainant in November 1986.
Answered by Jeremy Wright
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not consider it possible to answer questions (a) and (b) with a number because of the degree of interpretation required to determine what may amount to a “contradiction” and what may be described materially as a “statement of fact”.
There are no contemporaneous documents from 1986. The memorandum of conviction, which is held in the form of a certified extract created some years later, contains the date of birth. The microfiche records, which are dated after 1986, also contain the date of birth.
Asked by: Peter Bottomley (Conservative - Worthing West)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Ministerial Correction of 24 June 2016 to Question 40180, on Gurpal Virdi, (a) when the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) became aware that the Metropolitan Police had documentary evidence of the age of the complainant arrested on 7 November 1986 by PC Markwick and (b) whether the CPS asked for a statement by the arresting officer.
Answered by Jeremy Wright
(a) The prosecution case was that Gurpal Virdi was the arresting officer. When the file was received from the police in November 2013, before charge, it contained a document which stated the date of birth of the complainant.
(b) DC Markwick is named on the extract of the court’s memorandum of conviction dated 24 June 1987 in the section “name of informant or complainant”. The CPS did not request a statement from Mr Markwick. The prosecution case was that Gurpal Virdi was the arresting officer.
Asked by: Peter Bottomley (Conservative - Worthing West)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how and why the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) joined the Metropolitan Police in announcing that retired police sergeant Gurpal Virdi was charged with misconduct in public office and with indecent assault on a person under 16 years; what publicity the CPS recorded as resulting at the time; when the memorandum of a conviction proved 1 April 1987 for offences on 7 November 1986 of a defendant born on 5 September 1970 with informant or complainant recorded as PC Markwick came to the attention of the CPS; what steps were taken to put right the effect of the wrong statement; when those steps were taken; and what the results of those steps were.
Answered by Jeremy Wright
A press release was issued by the Metropolitan Police Service which stated that the complainant was under 16. The CPS was not a party to this release and did not issue any other release. The CPS does not retain records of publicity resulting at the time.
When the case was reviewed in 2014 for charging, the complainant and the witness clearly stated that the complainant had been 15 when the incident took place in 1986. The police summary stated that the complainant was 15. However the complainant’s date of birth and the date of his arrest were known and this mistake should not have been made.
The CPS was supplied with the memorandum of conviction referred to on 17 September 2014.
No steps were taken to publicise the fact that the charge was later amended in open court to remove the assertion that the complainant was under 16.
Asked by: Peter Bottomley (Conservative - Worthing West)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what the cost is to the Crown Prosecution Service of obtaining a transcript of the Southwark Crown Court trial of charges against Gurpal Virdi.
Answered by Jeremy Wright
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has requested an estimate of the cost of obtaining a transcript and has been informed that it will take 10 days for this to be supplied. Once the estimate is received the CPS will write to the Honorable Member to inform him of the figure.
Asked by: Peter Bottomley (Conservative - Worthing West)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, if he will meet hon. Members and representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service to discuss the prosecution of Councillor Gurpai Virdi in the case heard at Southwark Crown Court starting on 27 July 2015.
Answered by Jeremy Wright
The decision to prosecute Gurpal Virdi for misconduct in public office and indecent assault was made in accordance with the Full Code Test as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The case was handled by a specialist unit within the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), prosecuted by Treasury Counsel and supervised at very senior levels of the CPS.
There was detailed legal argument and a defence application to dismiss the case before trial. The application failed. At trial no defence submission was made to the trial judge that the matter should not be left to the jury. Mr Virdi was subsequently acquitted by the jury after a full trial.
I understand that the CPS has already written to my Hon. Friend with a more detailed explanation of the decision making in this case and I am satisfied that the CPS have handled the prosecution appropriately. However, I am happy to meet my Hon. Friend along with representatives of the CPS to discuss the case further if required.