Thank you for your letter dated 20 December 2007.

  I regret that not all of the information you have sought is readily available however I am able to provide most of the information you have requested and to answer your substantive questions at 5, 6, and 7.

  We do not keep specific data about which test was applied in every case since the test was introduced, but I am able to give you that information in relation to those who were held for more than 14 days.

  Eight individuals have been charged after being held for more than 14 days. The threshold test was used to charge four defendants. The full test was used to charge the other four.

  In three cases where the threshold test was used the defendants had been held for 27/28 days and in the other the defendant was held for 20 days before charge. Of the four charged on the full test, three were held for 19/20 days and one for 15 days. The reason for the day not being exact is that I do not have the precise time of each defendant's arrest.

  Of those charged on the threshold test, two were charged with offences contrary to Section 5 Terrorism Act 2006, one with conspiracy to cause explosions and one with offences under Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000 and Section 8 Terrorism Act 2006. Three charged on the full test were charged with conspiracy to murder and one with an offence under Section 38B Terrorism Act 2000. I should emphasis at this point that Section 5 Terrorism Act 2006 is a very serious offence that requires intent and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. I have felt it necessary to emphasise this because the seriousness of that offence was questioned by others during the evidence session.

  There is considerable monitoring in all terrorism cases after charge and particularly where the threshold test has been used. This takes the form of continuous review by the prosecutor and judicial scrutiny of the case in accordance with the Terrorism Case Management Protocol (TCMP). The TCMP is a public document which sets out how all terrorism cases should be managed through the court.

  CPS guidance requires prosecutors to set review dates in all threshold test cases. The date for the first review is set at the time of charge and the main pieces of evidence required will be set out in an advice for the police. Thereafter there will be further regular reviews as and when necessary in each individual case. In terrorism cases the prosecutor allocated to a case will be working on it consistently until the point that the case papers are served on the defence and the court, whether that is within 42 days (the time for most ordinary criminal cases) or a longer period set by the judge. Each prosecutor on the Counter Terrorism Division has only a few cases which will be at different stages of the investigative and prosecution process and it is not unusual in the very large cases for a prosecutor to be devoted almost exclusively to that case from the date of charge to the date of trial.

  In the first 11 days the prosecutor looks at the available evidence, advises the police, and produces a preliminary summary and proposed timetable for service of evidence. These are both quite detailed documents which serve to inform the managing judge and the defence at an early stage about what evidence is then currently available and what additional evidence will be available for service and when it will be available. On the fourteenth day there is a preliminary hearing where the judge sets the timetable for the case having been informed by the information provided by the prosecutor. This will inevitably involve staged service of distinct sections of the evidence and before each section is served the prosecutor will review it against the evidence so far. The evidential case inevitably continues to develop up until the date that the full case is served but often beyond that as terrorism investigations are frequently very large and wide ranging.

  There are also regular conferences to discuss and review the progress of the case and the gathering of evidence throughout that pre-service period. This continuous and dynamic process means that the whole of the prosecution's case against each defendant in every case is looked at very regularly. If the evidence is not developing as anticipated or if something is received that appears to be exculpatory, the prosecutor will reconsider the case against each defendant and either discontinue if it is clear that there is no longer a realistic prospect of conviction or if felt more appropriate because further information is expected, in exceptional circumstances we might inform the court that bail is no longer opposed. This could occur at any stage even before the formal review date or receipt of all the papers from the police.

  In addition to the continuous review by the prosecutor, the regular conferences with the prosecution team to review progress, and the monitoring of the timetable by the court, all cases are closely supervised by me or my deputy throughout their lifetime. This includes regular updates on progress and monthly formal reporting.

  I trust you will understand from my brief explanation, that there are procedures in place to ensure very close monitoring and supervision of all terrorism cases and especially those where the threshold test has been used. We do of course keep all our systems and procedures under review and develop and improve our practices where it is thought appropriate.

  I know you will appreciate that I was not personally involved in the introduction of the threshold test but I have consulted colleagues about the background to it. The threshold test was developed following the transfer of responsibility for charging from the police to the CPS.

  Prior to the changes in 2004 charging was generally agreed by the police custody officer after discussion with the investigating officer about the nature of the evidence. At this stage of the investigation in most serious or complex cases, it was generally impossible for the police to have produced a full file of admissible evidence. The threshold test was designed to ensure that in serious cases where it is not appropriate to release a suspect on bail, but where the evidence to apply the Full Code Test is not yet available, it was possible to charge. I explained the nature of that test during my evidence. The Director of Public Prosecutions' Guidance on Charging issued under Section 37 PACE, sought to remove any difference between the standards applied by the police and the CPS and to require a custody officer to apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors when the guidance was first published for statutory charging in 2004. The test also sought to embrace the requirements of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights by using the same test of reasonable suspicion and also by referring to the evidence.

  When the threshold test was first included in the most recent edition of the Code for Crown Prosecutors published in June 2004, there was full cross Government consultation. This consultation included members of the senior judiciary who put forward no objection.

  I have also consulted others on the issue of whether there should be an express requirement to inform the defence and the court which test was used to charge.

  The CPS can see no benefit (or advantage to the defendant) in an express requirement that the court and defence must be informed that the initial decision to charge is based on either the "Threshold Test" or the "Full Code Test". The court dealing with bail issues is not the court of trial but is solely concerned with whether the defendant should be retained in custody or remanded on bail. The safeguard is that the defendant will have been charged on the authority of an experienced independent prosecutor after a careful examination of the available evidence on the basis of a test contained within the most widely published document of the CPS: namely the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The criminal process already enables the defence to be informed of the evidential basis of the Crown's case at the first hearing and permits applications to be made for the case to be dismissed at an early stage in proceedings. Moreover, the defence can bring any perceived dilatoriness on behalf of the prosecution to the attention of the court, who then can impose judicial scrutiny on the process and even prescribe a timetable for service of material. The Bail Act and Custody Time Limit regime further ensures that courts must consider the strength of the evidence against a defendant and the conduct of the prosecution when making a decision whether to remand in custody or not.

  In relation to cases under the TCMP, there is of course very early disclosure of the evidence available in a served summary and rigorous case management by a High Court Judge.

  I hope that you find this information helpful.