§ 28. Mr. MackinlayTo ask the Attorney-General what involvement his Department has had with Customs and Excise and the police since 1991 in combating criminal importation of drugs.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell)My Department has contributed fully to the development of the comprehensive range of measures introduced by the Government to combat drug trafficking. As Attorney-General, I also have a general responsibility when matters are properly brought to my notice in relation to the fairness and effectiveness of the prosecution process.
§ Mr. MackinlayWill the Attorney-General explain the extraordinary circumstances in which he agreed, along with the Solicitor-General, to meet counsel for a Mr. Charrington, who was in custody on serious drug charges on 21 December 1992? What was so different about that case, as distinct from the cases of all the other people awaiting trial, what was the involvement of the Customs and Excise and why were the charges almost immediately dropped following that meeting?
§ The Attorney-GeneralIt is a pity that the hon. Gentleman, who has taken some interest in the matter, has not bothered to read the detailed answer that I gave on 26 January at column 246 to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I made it perfectly clear that leading counsel for the defence made an application to see me about the case because he felt that, in the special circumstances of the case, his client was not necessarily being treated as he should. I arranged for a meeting which was attended by counsel for the prosecution. The independent prosecuting authority was the Customs and Excise. The matter was discussed and explained. Customs and Excise said that it was already reconsidering certain aspects of the evidence. It went away and considered the matter further. The decision to discontinue the case against Mr. Charrington was taken entirely by the commissioners of Customs and Excise on the advice of their leading counsel without any further reference to me.
§ Mr. RathboneIrrespective of the facts of that peculiar case, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, as the Government's chief Law Officer, he pays special care and attention to the prosecutions that Customs and Excise wishes to bring and those that the Crown Prosecution Service wishes to bring and makes certain that there is no conflict of interest between those two prosecuting authorities?
§ The Attorney-GeneralAs my hon. Friend may realise, there is a distinction between the position of the Crown Prosecution Service and that of the Customs and Excise as an independent prosecuting authority. Under statute, I superintend the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service. I do not have the same statutory relationship with the Customs and Excise. I have an overall purview in relation to the prosecution process, but I can become involved in cases by other independent prosecuting authorities only if those cases are properly brought to my notice.
§ Mr. FraserI am sure that the Attorney-General will concede that the circumstances of that conference were extremely unusual. What was the involvement of the Attorney-General's Parliamentary Private Secretary in the matter? Why, as reported, did he try to suppress a report that the meeting had taken place? Did he have anything to do with the leak or any other connection with the case? Does the Attorney-General have any advice to offer about the liaison between the police, as a prosecuting authority, 14 and Customs and Excise? It seems extraordinary that the case should have proceeded for several months with one hand not knowing what the other hand was doing.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThere are a number of different strands, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to be confused about them. Liaison between Customs and Excise and the police is an operational matter for the heads of those two organisations, who doubtless take liaison matters extremely seriously; such matters are not for me. As for the specific meeting, although such meetings are not regular, they are not exceptionally unusual. From time to time, such worries about cases are properly raised with me. The one that we are discussing was such an example. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) had no involvement in that consultation, and no involvement in the case vis-à-vis my Department. I was not aware of his constituency involvement until after the matter appeared in the press.