Director of Public Prosecutions (Hansard, 2 April 1990)

§ 67. Mr. Winnick
To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what subjects were discussed.

§ The Attorney-General
I last met the Director of Public Prosecutions on 27 March when we discussed matters of departmental interest.

§ Mr. Winnick
Will the Attorney-General confirm that incitement to murder is an extremely serious criminal offence? Can he explain why those in Britain who have in the past year called for the murder of a British citizen have had no action taken against them? Surely it is necessary for the law to apply to all.

§ The Attorney-General
Of course, the law should apply to all and of course, the offence of incitement to murder is extremely grave. The hon. Gentleman's question has been dealt with by me in an answer to a previous question in the House and has been debated on more than one occasion in another place. The Director of Public Prosecutions has publicly expressed his view that incitement to murder is always a very grave offence. He has drawn the attention of chief constables throughout the country to that view and to the context in which he expressed it, that is, the Salman Rushdie affair.

§ Mr. Latham
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, in relation to that matter, that there could have been no question, one hopes, of such a decision being taken purely on the grounds of political policy?

§ The Attorney-General
No decision is ever taken purely on the grounds of political consequence, if I heard my hon. Friend's last word correctly, nor is it ever taken on grounds of partisan interest. In this case, the decision was taken entirely on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of an admissible nature to give rise to a reasonable prospect of a conviction. That is the test which the code for Crown prosecutors imposes. It is only once that test has been passed that the question arises for any prosecutor as to whether the public interest requires a prosecution. That stage was never reached on that occasion.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
Does the Attorney-General agree that perjury is always a very serious offence? Is he satisfied that the perjury committed to obtain entry into London's financial markets and the ownership of a major London business has been considered properly in connection with the Harrods affair?

§ The Attorney-General
Of course, I agree that perjury is always a serious offence. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know, of course, that by statute there are certain 888 evidential tests to be passed for the prosecution of perjury. The Directors of the Serious Fraud Office and of Public Prosecutions issued a joint statement in which they made clear the reason why no prosecution was being brought for that or any other offence in the case of the Fayeds.

§ 68. Mr. Dickens
To ask the Attorney-General when he will next be meeting the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the criteria on which it is decided to bring forward a prosecution.

§ The Attorney-General
I frequently meet the Director of Public Prosecutions and I expect to do so again this week. The code for Crown prosecutors provides that the institution or continuation of criminal proceedings should depend upon the availability of sufficient admissible, substantial and reliable evidence to afford a realistic prospect of conviction and upon the public interest requiring a prosecution.

§ Mr. Dickens
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the public will welcome that clarification, because many hon. Members receive letters asking why prosecutions are not brought in certain cases? Will he assure me that those guidelines are under regular review?

§ The Attorney-General
The guidelines are reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions as the code is repeated as an appendix to the Director's annual report, which is made to me and published. I believe that, in this respect, they are sensible and right, but the Director is always open to suggestions for a variation of them. However, we believe that they have stood the test of time and are fair, sensible and provide a realistic and proper guide.

§ Ms. Mowlam
Does the Attorney-General believe that the code is working properly when it takes well over 12 months to review many cases involving police accidents? As he well knows, we in Cleveland have been waiting well over 12 months for a number of cases, about which we have already written to him. We have been told that there have been delays and problems in record keeping. We should like to know this, for both the police and families involved: does the Attorney-General consider that the DPP and the Crown prosecution service are doing the job adequately when people are having to wait that long for decisions?

§ The Attorney-General
I think that the hon. Lady would wish to provide a specific instance of what she regards as an unwarrantable delay. There are two types of criticism on the use of the state's prosecuting power: first, that it takes a long time for decisions to be made for a prosecution to be brought and secondly, that a prosecution has been brought hastily—either of which can lead to injustice. There must be a diligent examination of the evidence available; where that evidence is insufficient, a request should be made to the police to see whether it can be improved. If it cannot be improved, then—not until then—the prosecution must be abandoned.