Asked by: Roger Godsiff (Labour - Birmingham, Hall Green)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, when did Department received a request from the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to give consent to a prosecution in relation to the SFO's investigation into GPT Special Project Management and aspects of the conduct of that organisation's business in Saudi Arabia; and what his Department's response was to the SFO's request.
Answered by Geoffrey Cox
I am not able to provide any specific information about an on-going investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. I can confirm that I am aware of this case and I receive regular case updates in relation to it.
Asked by: Roger Godsiff (Labour - Birmingham, Hall Green)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the The Attorney General, for what reasons three former Credit Suisse employees, Andrew James Pearse, Surjan Singh and Detelina Vaneva Subeva who are subject to an extradition request from US authorities, have not been charged under UK law.
Answered by Robert Buckland
Charging decisions are matters for the Directors of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, who act independently. Such decisions are made by applying the Code for Crown Prosecutors. I cannot comment on individual cases.
Asked by: Roger Godsiff (Labour - Birmingham, Hall Green)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what assessment his Department carried out to determine whether the CPS requirement for people who have been victims of sexual assault to sign a Stafford statement complies with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; what guidelines exist as to whether people reporting sexual assault must agree to sign such a statement; and what information those people are given about what that process involves.
Answered by Robert Buckland
A “Stafford statement” is not a CPS requirement, but is used by some police forces to seek the consent of the complainant to access material held by third parties when this is relevant to the investigation.
It is of vital importance that the personal information of complainants who report sexual offences is treated in a way that is consistent with both their right to privacy and with the interests of justice. CPS guidance is clear that requests for access to information held by third parties or on digital devices must be a reasonable line of inquiry, justified by the circumstances of the individual case. It should not be undertaken routinely in every case.
As part of the National Disclosure Improvement Plan, the CPS are working closely with the police to ensure that complainants are given the opportunity to make an informed decision about allowing police access to their personal information. This will ensure that complainants are aware of both how their digital devices or records will be examined and the use that may be made of any data obtained through that examination, including informing the complainant if it is to be disclosed to the defendant.
Asked by: Roger Godsiff (Labour - Birmingham, Hall Green)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what changes have been made to CPS charging thresholds in cases of rape; and for what reasons such thresholds have been changed.
Answered by Robert Buckland
There has been no change of approach or policy in how prosecutors should make charging decisions in rape cases. It has always been the case that decisions are made in accordance with the Full Code Test.
The growth in the volume of digital evidence is complicating the gathering and analysis of evidence. To address the increasing complexity of cases we have introduced new guidance to help police and prosecutors with reasonable lines of enquiry and communications evidence. The National Disclosure Improvement Plan sets out further measures to ensure the proper processes are followed.
Asked by: Roger Godsiff (Labour - Birmingham, Hall Green)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, whether any Shawcross exercises have been conducted into (a) concluded and (b) extant Serious Fraud Office cases in each of the past six years.
Answered by Jeremy Wright
It is my department’s usual policy not to comment on any live cases. In the six years up until the end of 2017, there had been no Shawcross exercises in relation to any concluded SFO cases.
Asked by: Roger Godsiff (Labour - Birmingham, Hall Green)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, with how many prosecuting authorities in other countries the Serious Fraud Office has shared information arising out of its investigation into bribery and corruption allegations concerning Rolls-Royce; what the Serious Fraud Office's policy is on the exchange of such information; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The SFO works closely with trusted partners around the world. Developing and using those relationships to the mutual benefit of the citizens of the jurisdictions concerned is a central part of the UK’s strategy to combat cross border economic crime. For operational reasons the SFO does not comment on cases that are under active investigation or on relations with overseas partners in connection with such cases.
The SFO will continue to treat any requests for mutual legal assistance from overseas authorities that may be connected to this investigation, in line with UK government policy and international convention.
Information about the Rolls Royce investigation and the recent Deferred Prosecution Agreement is available on the SFO website at;
Asked by: Roger Godsiff (Labour - Birmingham, Hall Green)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what meetings he has had with ministerial colleagues to discuss the Serious Fraud Office's investigation of Rolls Royce.
Answered by Robert Buckland
I meet with ministerial colleagues frequently to discuss a variety of issues. However, as was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s policy to provide details of all such meetings.