Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, when the Attorney General informed the Prime Minister of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ intention not to proceed with the prosecution of Mr Christopher Cash and Mr Christopher Berry.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
As you are aware, I was appointed to the role of Solicitor General on 6 September. The Security Minister gave a statement to the House on 15 September stating that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had taken the decision to not proceed with the prosecutions of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry.
Decisions to prosecute are, rightly, made independently of Government by the CPS. Once consent is granted, the CPS is responsible for conducting the case.
I had no input into or knowledge of the case being dropped until it became public knowledge.
The decision to offer no evidence was a decision made by the CPS, without any political influence, including by the Attorney General and me, as the CPS has already confirmed several times.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, what steps she took to help prevent the non-continuation of the prosecution of Mr Christopher Cash and Mr Christopher Berry.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
As you are aware, I was appointed to the role of Solicitor General on 6 September. The Security Minister gave a statement to the House on 15 September stating that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had taken the decision to not proceed with the prosecutions of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry.
Decisions to prosecute are, rightly, made independently of Government by the CPS. Once consent is granted, the CPS is responsible for conducting the case.
I had no input into or knowledge of the case being dropped until it became public knowledge.
The decision to offer no evidence was a decision made by the CPS, without any political influence, including by the Attorney General and me, as the CPS has already confirmed several times.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, on which date the Attorney General was informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the decision not to proceed with the case against Mr Christopher Cash and Mr Christopher Berry.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
As you are aware, I was appointed to the role of Solicitor General on 6 September. The Security Minister gave a statement to the House on 15 September stating that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had taken the decision to not proceed with the prosecutions of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry.
Decisions to prosecute are, rightly, made independently of Government by the CPS. Once consent is granted, the CPS is responsible for conducting the case.
I had no input into or knowledge of the case being dropped until it became public knowledge.
The decision to offer no evidence was a decision made by the CPS, without any political influence, including by the Attorney General and me, as the CPS has already confirmed several times.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, how many people are prosecuted under s21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 each year.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Crown Prosecution Service holds data on the number of prosecutions where a charge has been authorised and reached a first hearing in the magistrates’ courts for specific offences.
The below table provides details of the number of offences charged under section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 in the last ten years.
2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 (up to end of September) |
5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, whether the Attorney General has provided the (a) Permanent Secretary and (b) Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards a list of his (a) paid and (b) unpaid fees further to his past employment at Matrix Chambers.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
As I set out to the House on Thursday 23 January, and the Attorney General repeated in the House of Lords on Monday 27 January, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has an established and rigorous process for identifying and dealing with conflicts, and potential conflicts, that arise from the Law Officers’ past practice. That process predates the appointment of the Attorney General and sits against the backdrop of every lawyer’s professional obligation to be alert to, and actively manage, any situation that might give rise to a potential or actual conflict.
This rigorous process for identifying and managing conflicts sits alongside the system relating to ministerial interests, overseen by the Prime Minister’s Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards. Both the Director General of the AGO and the Independent Adviser were provided with the Attorney General’s list of conflicts following his appointment.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many people were prosecuted for offences relating to anti-semitism in the UK in each of the last five years.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Whilst the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does flag cases on its case management system that are identified as racial or religious hate crimes, it does not maintain a central record of prosecutions for offences specifically relating to anti-semitism. Such information could only be obtained through a manual search of records which would incur disproportionate cost.