HL Deb 25 October 1994 vol 558 cc25-6WA
Lord Spens

asked Her Majesty's Government:

In which criminal prosecutions conducted by the Serious Fraud Office since its inception transcripts obtained by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors were originally introduced as primary evidence against individual defendants, and in which such prosecutions such evidence has subsequently been withdrawn.

The Lord Chancellor

No central record is kept of occasions when transcripts obtained by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors have been used as evidence against individual defendants. Enquiries show that they have been so used in the cases set out below but to review all the cases prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  1. 1. Regina v Saunders, Parties, Ronson and Lyons (Guinness). Regina v Seelig and Spens (Guinness). Regina v Seelig and Mayhew (Guinness).
  2. 2. Regina v Grab, Posgate, Carpenter and Page (Howden/Minet). Regina v Grab and Hart (Howden/Minet).
  3. 3. Regina v Keat, Clark Stainforth, Reed, Cohen, Wells and Gibbs (County NatWest). Regina v Smallwood, Brown, Villiers and Brimelow (County NatWest).
  4. 4. Regina v Wilkinson, Colson, Collins, Southgate and Cole (Bestwood).
  5. 5. Regina v Clowes, Naylor, Cramer and Newman (Barlow Clowes).

In none of these cases has the prosecution withdrawn the evidence.