§ 32. Mr. Ian BruceTo ask the Attorney-General what is the average time for a serious fraud case to be brought to trial after the accused has been charged.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell)The average time between acceptance of a case by the Serious Fraud Office and the preparatory hearing which constitutes the start of the trial was 27 months for the year ending April 1992 and 24 months for the year ending April 1993.
§ Mr. BruceI thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Surely it is intolerable that it has taken so long to bring to trial someone who has been charged and against whom there is already some evidence. Surely it is not in the public interest or that of the accused that that length of time should be taken. How long will it be before the number of months is reduced to a more acceptable level?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe reason for setting up the Serious Fraud Office to deal with these complex cases was precisely that given by my hon. Friend—the matters needed to be investigated more expeditiously and efficiently. The length of time that it takes to deal with those complex matters is a great deal shorter than it was before the Serious Fraud Office was set up.
§ Mr. John MorrisIs the Attorney-General satisfied that the Serious Fraud Office has adequate resources to investigate and proceed with cases expeditiously? Will he look into some of the cases to which much publicity has been given as a result of the delays and into prosecutions involving Ministry of Defence property?
§ The Attorney-GeneralYes, I am satisfied that the Serious Fraud Office has adequate resources. When it has taken on particularly big cases, such as the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and Maxwell, special arrangements for extra resources have been made. I will certainly consider what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about Ministry of Defence cases, but I have no reason to believe that such cases are unduly prolonged. A number of extremely complex cases—for example, in relation to the North sea—have recently been brought to very satisfactory conclusions.
§ Sir Ivan LawrenceSince fraud cases must vary in their complexity and length, surely there is not much point in criticising the average length of time it takes to bring a fraud case to trial. On the other hand, however, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the longer a case takes to come to trial, the more likely it is that a company will be destroyed when news of the investigation gets around?
§ The Attorney-GeneralMy hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, although that news is likely to get around at the beginning rather than at the end of the investigation. That the cases should be dealt with promptly and expeditiously is extremely important.
§ Mr. MaclennanDoes the Attorney-General accept that, in the average case appearing before the Crown court, it takes 13.7 weeks between committal and trial? Although the matter of fraud is appalling, the average length of a trial is far too long. What is he going to do about that?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He compares relatively simple cases that appear before a Crown court and large complex cases. If he casts his mind back to the early 1980s, for example, he will find that some large cases from the City of London took five, six or seven years to come forward, whereas the equivalent period now is two, three or four years. Expedition is extremely important. We have made improvements; we must continue to work at it.
§ Mr. ThurnhamWhere the Serious Fraud Office has spent millions of pounds preparing its case, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider appealing against a grossly lenient sentence, such as that imposed on Levitt?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI cannot comment on individual cases, but a clause has been tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to give my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the power to extend the power of the Attorney-General to refer sentences in serious and complex fraud cases.