Prosecuting Authorities (Hansard, 30 June 1994)

§ The Attorney-General

The review team, headed by Mr. John Graham, which examined the handling of serious fraud has now delivered its report. Copies of the report and of annexes 1 to 5 and 7 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Annex 6 of the report has not been published. It is a summary of some recent and current cases in both Departments which should, in line with the general handling of such material, be retained within the prosecuting departments.

The review team undertook a comprehensive study of the arrangements for the investigation and prosecution of criminal fraud cases in the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, examining in particular relative work loads and the criteria for allocating cases between the two Departments and the organisation and management of investigation and prosecution work in the two Departments. It took account of the role of the police in fraud investigations and of the DTI in company matters generally. The review did not constitute the feasibility study into the possibility of a merger between the Serious Fraud Office and the fraud investigation group of the Crown Prosecution Service suggested by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, but the review team was asked in its terms of reference to carry out its work in the light of the Royal Commission's recommendation 36.

I am grateful to Mr. John Graham and his team for the work which they have done. The report identifies management and organisational issues which need to be addressed by the Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office and on which the review team has made helpful recommendations. In many cases, the issues had already been identified within the prosecuting Departments and improvements set in hand. The vast majority of the remaining recommendations are accepted and I have asked the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the 653W Serious Fraud Office to take these forward urgently, consulting the police where appropriate. A joint vetting committee is being established to ensure all complex and serious fraud cases are handled by the prosecuting department which has the most suitable powers and resources for the particular case. The copies of the report placed in the Libraries are accompanied by a response jointly prepared by the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, which deals briefly with each recommendation in so far as it affects each Department.

The report concludes that there is a range of cases which can be satisfactorily handled only through the multidisciplinary approach to investigation and prosecution recommended by the fraud trials committee chaired by Lord Roskill. There are, however, some cases which can be described as serious or complex but which do not require that approach. The review team noted that there was some overlap between cases allocated to the fraud investigation group of the Crown Prosecution Service and to the Serious Fraud Office. It identified some potential benefits which could flow from the establishment of a single organisation which would deal with all serious or complex fraud cases but handle them on a differential basis. The review team saw scope for arrangements under which some cases would be both investigated and prosecuted by the new organisation while other cases would only be prosecuted by it. The review team made no recommendation as to whether any new organisation should constitute part of an enlarged Serious Fraud Office or Crown Prosecution Service but identified advantages and disadvantages associated with each option.

Further consideration will be given to the question of merger in conjunction with the studies I announced on 6 December 1993, Official Report, column 60, to establish whether executive agency status was appropriate for the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service. Ministers will wish to take a final decision about a possible merger in the light of recommendations arising from those studies.