§ Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
How much was paid by the Crown towards the costs of General Pinochet's appeal to the House of Lords, following the rehearing of the case necessitated by Lord Hoffmann's failure to declare his connection with Amnesty International. [HL279]
§ The Lord ChancellorThe costs to the Crown of Senator Pinochet's appeal to the House of Lords that were incurred following the House of Lords' ruling on the 25 November 1998 were as follows: the Crown's representation, £250,900; Senator Pinochet's representation, £151,361.
After the original decision of the House of Lords was set aside on 17 December 1998, the court ordered that any further costs be borne by each party. Therefore, the Crown paid no further costs towards Senator Pinochet's representation for the re-hearing which concluded on the 24 March 1999.
§ Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the leak enquiry into the second hearing on General Pinochet by the House of Lords has still not reported; and when it is expected to do so. [HL299]
§ The Lord ChancellorThe delay in concluding the inquiry was due to the original investigator suffering a serious illness. However, both he and his successor (both appointed by the Clerk of the Parliaments) have concluded that no person or persons were responsible for a leak of the Pinochet judgment. Their conclusion is that the press articles just before the publication of the judgment on 24 March, which were surprisingly accurate in some respects, were the result of skilful journalism.
§ Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Under what legislative provision central funds paid the legal costs of General Pinochet resulting from the second hearing in the House of Lords. [HL361]
48WA
§ The Lord ChancellorThe costs incurred by Senator Pinochet in respect of both the order and adjudgment of the House of Lords of 25 November 1998 (the first hearing of the appeal) and the order of the House of Lords of the 17 December 1998 (petition to have the first judgment vacated) were paid out of central funds under an order of the House of Lords made in accordance with Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. No costs were ordered (or paid) in respect of the order and adjudgment of the House of 24 March 1999 (second hearing of the appeal).