| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Serious Fraud Office (Convictions)
32. Mr. Rowe: To ask the Attorney-General in what proportion of cases in the past 12 months the Serious Fraud Office achieved the conviction of the principal offender named in the indictment.[1888]
The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The principal offender named in the indictment was convicted in 89 per cent. of the cases prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office in the past 12 months.
Mr. Rowe: That is something of a reassuring surprise given the media coverage of the Serious Fraud Office. Will my hon. and learned Friend consider passing on congratulations to the SFO on the outcome of the latest Guinness appeal? Will he tell the House what more can be done to give the SFO a more justified reputation in the media?
The Solicitor-General: The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is that that will happen only if people tell the truth about the SFO's record instead of spreading half truths and selective truths. The SFO has an extremely good record. Since it started its work, it has obtained convictions in 62 per cent. of all cases that by definition were serious and complex. In at least 75 per cent. of the trials in which it has been involved, one defendant--usually the principal defendant--has been convicted.
Mr. MacShane: The Serious Fraud Office can now rest easy that Nick Leeson will spend six-and-a-half years in some rat-infested malaria hole in Changi prison. Is the Solicitor-General able to assure us that, if the Singapore authorities applied for the extradition of Mr. Peter Norris and others who were responsible for the Barings cover-up in London, the Government would put no obstacles in the path of such an application?
The Solicitor-General: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seems to be carrying a brief for Mr. Leeson. Most people would compliment the SFO's director in the attitude he took, which enabled Mr. Leeson to be brought to justice in the most appropriate jurisdiction.
The investigation of the position of senior Barings executives continues. It is an operational matter for the SFO. It is not in the interests of justice that I say anything more about it in public now.
Crown Prosecution Service (Liaison)
33. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Attorney-General what measures the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to ensure good liaison between it and the police.[1889]
The Attorney-General: The Crown Prosecution Service and the police are working closely together on a number of initiatives, including reducing the volume of paper in prosecution files, greater use of information technology and co-ordinated training.
Mr. Congdon: May I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's answer, especially the part which referred
to reducing paperwork? Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will say to what extent he sees the new SCOPE system having an effect on reducing paperwork and improving communications between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police?
The Attorney-General: SCOPE will be extremely effective in improving case tracking and case management. I look forward to the time--one is looking ahead now-- when SCOPE will be able to work in harmony with police and court IT systems. It is extremely important that all sections of the criminal justice system, while they each have their independent functions, should be able to work closely and effectively together, and IT has an important part to play in that.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that the Minister will understand nevertheless that for many people involved in cases as witnesses there is a real gap between their understanding of the attitude of the Crown Prosecution Service, which may have a sensible legal basis, and their reaction to being approached by the police to act as a witness in a difficult case. If people involved in very fraught cases are given insufficient information from the CPS and the police, there will be a real misunderstanding of the workings of the justice system.
The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with what the hon. Lady says, and think that every police officer and Crown prosecutor would also agree. Close working relationships between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are the essence of the fair and efficient prosecution of cases and are essential in order that a witness and a victim may know what is going on, understand the reasons for it and thus have greater confidence in the administration of justice.
Mr. Sykes: In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said, might it possibly improve things if certain CPS lawyers were relocated to police stations?
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend raises an interesting and important point. The idea of placing Crown prosecutors in police stations or what are known as admin support units--the crime support units of police stations-- so that they can work closely with the police in the preparation of cases is something that we are thinking about very seriously indeed. We have not reached full agreement but we hope to conduct pilot schemes to explore that possibility. I think that that would do good to both services.
Serious Fraud Office (Actions)
34. Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the success rate resulting from actions taken by the Serious Fraud Office.[1891]
The Solicitor-General: Since its inception, more than three quarters of the cases prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office have resulted in the conviction of at least one defendant, usually the principal offender. The conviction rate for all defendants over that period is 62 per cent.
If that sounds very familiar, it is merely what I said a few minutes ago, and it bears repetition.
Mr. Cunningham:
Yes, but does the Minister not accept that there may well be a case, and so what proposals does he have for it, for better co-ordination between the regulatory bodies of the City and the SFO?
The Solicitor-General:
The Director of the SFO has negotiated guidelines that govern the conduct of cases between himself and the regulators. If cases are of high-level public concern and display serious dishonesty on the part of individuals, they will be prosecuted, make no mistake about that. Regulatory action may be appropriate if the offences are technical or where urgent action is needed and it can best be taken by the regulator.
Mr. John Marshall:
Impressive as those figures are, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that in his 62 per cent. he should include Mr. Levitt, who got off with a rather light sentence? Does he not agree that some of the cases have shown that serious fraud is too serious, too complex and too complicated to be dealt with by juries, and that the Government should follow the recommendations of the Roskill inquiry?
The Solicitor-General:
I believe that there is still much to be done to perfect our systems of trial, with new and improved information technology, which is currently being used in some cases, before we are driven to the stage of saying that such cases cannot be tried by jury and that they must be tried, as Roskill recommended, by some other tribunal. So far as the Levitt case is concerned, without dealing with any particular case, my right hon. and learned Friend now has power in appropriate cases to refer unduly lenient sentences in serious or complex frauds to the Court of Appeal for review.
35. Mr. Mackinlay:
To ask the Attorney-General what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the establishment of his office for the efficient conduct of its business.[1892]
The Attorney-General:
The establishment of my office is kept under review. I am satisfied that it is adequate.
Mr. Mackinlay:
In view of the Attorney-General's reply, can he explain why there is an inordinate delay in his considering whether there should be contempt proceedings against those involved in the Harrow case, which was referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) a few moments ago? Is it because the Attorney-General is not on top of his brief or is it that his Department is inadequately resourced? On 30 October, he told the House that he was considering contempt proceedings and he has said the same thing today. When will he get round to making a decision?
The Attorney-General:
The hon. Gentleman is wrong; there is not inordinate delay. The matter is under close consideration. As I have explained to the House before and as bears repetition, before I bring such proceedings, I give newspaper editors and journalists the opportunity to make representations about points that they think I should take into account before taking my decision. I have given them that opportunity and most of them have made representations. I am now considering my decision and I shall make it once I am ready.
Points of Order
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has, on several occasions, raised the issue of the transfer of questions tabled to the Deputy Prime Minister. I say to him and to the whole House that, however frustrating for hon. Members it is when questions are transferred, it is the long established principle, as "Erskine May" states on page 286 and as my predecessors and I have said many times, that
- "decisions on the transfer of questions rest with Ministers and it is not a matter in which the Chair seeks to intervene."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |