Mr. Roger Levitt (Hansard, 19 June 1995)

§ The Attorney-General

The Serious Fraud Office and prosecuting counsel have been asked to re-examine the events that led up to Mr. Levitt's plea in the light of recent media reports and questions from hon. Members.

Various counsel-to-counsel discussions about possible pleas, of the sort indicated to the hon. Member for Hendon, South in my answer on 17 December 1993, Official Report, column 1046, took place before 22 November. Such informal discussions are not unusual and would normally be confidential. They were not fully noted and there is no agreed record of what took place. I am, however, informed by prosecuting counsel that the discussions were initiated by counsel for only one of the defendants—not Mr. Levitt—and, following a later approach by counsel for another defendant, not Mr. Levitt, were necessarily expanded by counsel for the Crown to cover the position of all the defendants by 2 November 1993.

The discussions consequential on these initial approaches from the defence included a discussion which is believed to have taken place between leading counsel for the Crown and for Mr. Levitt around 5 November and a discussion between junior counsel for the Crown and leading counsel for Mr. Levitt on 9 November 1993 stating what the Crown's attitude was likely to be if Mr. Levitt tendered particular pleas. Prosecuting counsel continues, however, to reject the notion that it at any stage "suggested" that Mr. Levitt plead guilty to only some of the charges.

The Serious Fraud Office was aware of the discussions that were taking place. The Director of the Serious Fraud Office and prosecuting counsel have now considered together a copy letter from the solicitor for Mr. Levitt to his client dated 5 November 1993, which was handed to the director in the course of his appearance before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on 12 June 1995. They have recalled that the director and case controller had a meeting with prosecuting counsel on 5 November 1993. The joint recollection of all present is that the director was then informed of possible pleas which leading counsel for the Crown advised should, in the event that they were tendered, be accepted. The director and prosecuting counsel inform me that, although the director was minded to accept such pleas, he did not give instructions that the pleas should be accepted if tendered and would have needed to consider the position 70W further in that event. He expected discussions on a counsel-to-counsel basis to continue. The director is writing to the Select Committee about this and to offer to give further evidence if requested.

The plea ultimately accepted from Mr. Levitt was in the judgment of prosecuting counsel and the Serious Fraud Office significantly different from those under consideration on 5 and 9 November in that it did not include Mr. Levitt's admitting knowledge of, and participation in, any of the false valuations sent to private investors in TLG Ltd.

Prosecuting counsel and the Serious Fraud Office have again assured me that the Crown did not know the sentence which the judge was minded to impose for the relevant offence at the time it committed itself to accepting this plea on 22 November, prior to the visit to the judge, and did not know whether or not Mr. Levitt intended to proceed with the plea if the judge indicated an intention to impose a custodial sentence. As was made clear by the director in his evidence to the Select Committee, it would not in any event have been open to the Crown to resile from its acceptance of the plea because the judge indicated an intention to impose a non-custodial sentence.