HL Deb 26 October 1994 vol 558 cc534-5

3.10 p.m.

Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the practice of using transcripts obtained by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in their investigations under the provisions of the Companies Acts as primary evidence against individual defendants in criminal prosecutions has been discontinued.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)

My Lords, no. As the noble Lord is aware, the conduct of cases by the prosecuting authorities is not the subject of direction by Her Majesty's Government. It is for each prosecuting authority to decide in relation to individual cases whether to seek to adduce as evidence-in-chief transcripts of any interviews which may have taken place between defendants and inspectors appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry under the provisions of the Companies Act 1985.

Lord Spens

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. However, is he aware that the improper and possible unlawful use of those transcripts—now the subject of a European Commission on Human Rights ruling—was planned and discussed at meetings between Ministers, civil servants and DTI inspectors in early 1987? Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the public interest certificate that was issued to prevent discovery of those meetings will now be made available to the European Court so that these matters can be aired there?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I understand that this matter is now pending before the European Court of Human Rights. I would understand that the Court of Human Rights would be concerned with the appropriateness of the rules under which trials take place in this country in this connection. It will be the merits of that question upon which the Court will adjudicate.

Lord Boardman

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend consider that this form of inquisition, which is used under the Companies Act and increasingly elsewhere, may be contrary to the best traditions of British justice?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the admissibility of such evidence has been the subject of discussion in Parliament and is regulated by statute. I have no doubt that those in Parliament who agreed with this provision of our law were well acquainted with the deepest traditions of British justice but concluded that the specific circumstances of these reports made it right that they should be admissible, obviously under the general power of the judge to prevent them being used in a specific case if he thought that their use might prejudice a fair trial.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that this question, and the recent saga of prosecutions which have failed either in front of juries or in the Court of Appeal, underline the need to expand and strengthen the regulatory mechanisms in the City—that may be the answer to these problems in many cases—in particular by imposing massive civil penalties, including the imposition of fines, costs and disqualifications, and employing that most delightful of phrases "disgorgement of profits", rather than relying on the sometimes over-cumbersome machinery of the criminal law?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, it may be that that question is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I appreciate the concern that lies behind it. There is also a concern to be taken into account in that, if crime—dishonesty—is being practised in a way that would normally transgress the criminal law, it should be prosecuted as such wherever it occurs, whether in the City or elsewhere. Of course, the more complicated the circumstances, the more difficult it may be in practice to accomplish that. But there is certainly a case in principle for ensuring that truly criminal activities are dealt with under the criminal law.