SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE (Hansard, 16 December 1993)

§ Lord Spens
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether an inquiry into the practices and management of the Serious Fraud Office is contemplated.

§ The Lord Chancellor
On 18th October 1993 the Attorney General announced a review of the handling of serious fraud cases by the Serious Fraud Office and the Fraud Divisions of the Crown Prosecution Service.
The review will examine relative workloads and the criteria for allocating cases between the two departments; the organisation and management of investigation and prosecution work, taking into account the role of the police in fraud investigations and of the DTI in company matters generally and bearing in mind the need to secure timely and cost-effective prosecutions; and will examine the effect of the extended powers available to the SFO. The review team hope to report in February 1994.
The Government have no plans for any further inquiry.

§ Lord Spens
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the erasing of relevant paragraphs from Police Forensic reports in documents disclosed by the Serious Fraud Office is still considered to be best police procedure, and if so, what guidelines are followed.

§ The Lord Chancellor
Disclosure by the prosecuting authorities is governed by the common law and by guidelines issued in 1981 by the then Attorney General. The guidelines have subsequently been the subject of interpretation by the courts. The Serious Fraud Office requires all who prosecute on its behalf to comply fully with those obligations.

§ Lord Spens
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the practice of the Serious Fraud Office in preparing certain witness statements in advance of interviewing the witness, is still considered to be best police procedure, and if so, what guidelines are followed.

§ The Lord Chancellor
During the course of an investigation conducted by the Serious Fraud Office statements from witnesses will usually be taken by either police officers or SFO staff. Sometimes a draft may be prepared by the investigator from information supplied by the witness, but in all cases it is for the witness to satisfy himself about the contents of the statement before signing it.