§ Mr. Mike O'BrienTo ask the Attorney-General (1) if he consulted Mr. David Cocks QC on the wording of his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 9 December 1993,Official Report, columns 332–33; and if the specific wording of the answer was given prior approval by (a) Mr. George Staple and (b) the Solicitor-General; [30375]
(2) whom he consulted on the wording of the answer before giving answers to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 9 December 1993, Official Report, columns 332–33 on the case of Roger Levitt. [30397]
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe wording of my answer on 9 December 1993 to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South was prepared on the basis of information provided by the Serious Fraud Office. The specific wording was checked for accuracy by the case controller at the Serious Fraud Office and by leading counsel for the prosecution, Mr. David Cocks QC, but not by the director of the Serious Fraud Office personally. The answer was shown to the Lord Chief Justice, who did not ask for any700W change, so that he could see how references to the trial judge and the question of sentence were being handled. It was cleared by the Solicitor-General.
§ Mr. O'BrienTo ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions a person has been convicted of misleading FIMBRA; and on each occasion what was the sentence imposed for that charge. [30374]
§ The Attorney-GeneralIn the case of R v. Levitt the misleading of FIMBRA was pleaded as a particular to the count of fraudulent trading, as set out more fully in my answer to question No. 30405. The misleading of FIMBRA can give rise to a variety of offences. No central record is kept of such convictions and a complete check would involve disproportionate cost.
§ Mr. O'BrienTo ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) 19 June 1995,Official Report, columns 68–70, what other discussions took place between the director of the Serious Fraud Office and counsel for the prosecution of Roger Levitt before 22 November 1993; in what circumstances; what was their content and place; and if he will place the notes or records of those discussions in the Library. [30398]
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe director of the Serious Fraud Office and counsel discussed aspects of the case other than possible pleas at conferences on 24 February 1993 at 5 King's Bench Walk and 8 June 1993 and 19 November 1993, both at the Serious Fraud Office. It is not my practice to disclose the content of such discussions which concerned the general conduct of the case. To do so would be prejudicial to the proper administration of justice.
§ Mr. O'BrienTo ask the Attorney-General if he will place in the Library copies of the record or notes of meetings or conversations between the Serious Fraud Office and prosecution counsel in the case of Roger Levitt between September 1993 and 27 November 1993 which refer to(a) possible pleas to be entered by Levitt and (b) possible sentence which might arise from those pleas. [30399]
§ The Attorney-GeneralNeither the Serious Fraud Office nor prosecuting counsel has any record or notes as to the substance of meetings or conversations with counsel referring to these matters. There is a worksheet prepared by junior prosecuting counsel, Mr. Jonathan Fisher, for cost purposes which merely lists "conf with SFO re: pleas" on 5 November 1993 among other matters.
§ Mr. O'BrienTo ask the Attorney-General (1) if he will list the dates on which he was informed that his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) of 9 December 1993,Official Report, columns 323–33, may not have been full or correct in all particulars; by whom he was so informed and in what form; what action he took as a result of being so informed; and when he took it; [30400]
(2) when he was informed that authorised plea discussions described in his answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, (Mr. Anderson) of 19 June, Official Report, columns 68–70, had taken place; when he initiated inquiries to ascertain what discussions had taken place on pleas in respect of Mr. Roger Levitt; what has been the outcome of those enquiries; and if he will make a statement; [30409]
701W(3) whom he consulted before giving his reply to the hon. Member for Swansea, East of 19 June 1995, columns 68–70, on the case of Roger Levitt; and when; [30410]
(4) what information he received from Mr. Jonathan Goldberg QC in respect of his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon, South on 17 December 1993, Official Report, columns 1054–46; what account he took of it in his answer to the hon. Member on 16 December, Official Report, column 1049; what action he took in response to the representations of Mr. Goldberg; and when he took it. [70411]
§ The Attorney-GeneralMr. Jonathan Goldberg QC copied to me a letter from himself dated 13 December 1993 to Mr. David Cocks QC in which he suggested that my answers on 9 December 1993 to my hon. Friend the member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) were misleading as the result of the information provided to me by prosecuting counsel and/or the Serious Fraud Office. The letter was considered with the Deputy Director of the SFO, the case controller and prosecuting counsel at a meeting chaired by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General on 16 December 1993 to consider the terms of answers subsequently given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South on 17 December 1993. He was assured by prosecuting counsel and representatives of the Serious Fraud Office that the answers given on 9 December and the answers to be given were accurate and not misleading.
The fact that there were differences of view between the prosecution and defence about the case was referred to incidently but unspecifically at a meeting which I had with My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, on the conduct and outcome of the case generally on 12 January 1994.
Mr. Goldberg wrote a further letter on 21 February 1994 again asserting that prosecuting counsel had offered a plea deal prior to the case being opened before the jury which was only marginally less favourable than the plea Mr. Levitt finally entered. He enclosed copies of letters to him written by other defence counsel in the case in the context of a complaint under consideration by the professional conduct committee of the Bar Council. I replied to Mr. Goldberg, saying that the correspondence confirmed the degree of difference between counsel in the case but that the Law Officers were not in a position to resolve those differences. Nor, although it was helpful to be kept informed, would it be right for them to try to do so, particularly since the matter was being considered by the professional conduct committee.
On 31 May 1995 my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South wrote to me and drew attention to the programmes on BBC Radio 5 on plea bargaining. In that letter and at a subsequent meeting with me and the Solicitor-General on 6 June 1995 he asked that I re-examine the replies given to him on 9 December 1993. In the light of that letter and meeting, and a question tabled by the hon. Member for Swansea, East and media reports, the Serious Fraud Office and prosecuting counsel were asked to re-examine the events that led up to Mr. Levitt's plea. My hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General chaired further meetings on 12 June, 14 June and 15 June with the director and other members 702W of the SPTO, prosecuting counsel and my own officials. Following the meeting on 12 June the Solicitor-General asked to see the SFO files and counsel's notebooks for the period I to 22 November 1993. The SFO files were sent to my office on the evening of 13 June under cover of a letter from the deputy director. The Solicitor-General was given the notebooks of Mr. Cocks and junior prosecuting counsel's—Mr. Fisher's—worksheet during 14 June and the notebooks of both prosecuting junior counsel on 23 June. The Solicitor-General examined the material supplied but, with the exception of the worksheet to which I refer in my answer to question No. 30399, and Mr. Cock's note of the mitigation advanced on behalf of Mr. Reed could find no reference to possible pleas.
Following his appearance before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee the director considered in detail with prosecuting counsel and the case controller the letter from the solicitor for Mr. Levitt—Mr. Goldkorn—to his client, which had been handed to him during his appearance He also recovered his diary from storage and from that it was apparent that a meeting had taken place at the SFO at 8.45am on 5 November 1993 between prosecuting counsel and the director and the case controller. The deputy director's letter referred to this meeting and the possibility that pleas had been discussed between prosecuting counsel and the director of the SFO. Mr. Cocks and the director spoke to my office about his on 14 June prior to the meeting later that day. At that meeting the director explained that it had become apparent that a meeting had taken place on 5 November 1993. As was set out in my written answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, East given on 15 June, Official Report, 19 June 1995, columns 68–70, the joint recollection of all present was that the director had been then informed of possible pleas which leading counsel for the Crown advised should, in the event that they were tendered, be accepted. I was informed of the 5 November 1993 meeting on 14 June 1995 and joined the 15 June meeting. Prosecuting counsel and the director of the SFO confirmed to me personally that the terms of the proposed answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, East were accurate.
§ Mr. O'BrienTo ask the Attorney-General what were the fees paid to each prosecution counsel by the Crown in respect of the trial of Rover Levitt; and at what hourly rate. [30401]
§ The Attorney-GeneralFees inclusive of VAT and excluding expenses, paid to prosecution counsel were as follows:
£ Leading counsel 128,639.88 Junior counsel 155,890.73 Second junior counsel 165,118.71 Total 449,649.32 Hourly and daily rates as shown in the following table agreed for each stage of the case and were increased in annual reviews on the dates shown in the left-hand column.
703W
Date of engagement or annual review Pre transfer (up to 15 April 1992) Post transfer (from 16 April 1992) Daily rate Leading counsel 15 March 1991 150 165 600 15 March 1992 161 177 642 15 March 1993 — 183 662 Junior counsel 15 March 1991 90 100 300 15 March 1992 96 107 321 15 March 1993 — 110 331 Second junior counsel 15 March 1991 60 66 165 15 March 1992 64 71 177 15 March 1993 — 74 182 My answer of 23 May 1995 to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), Official Report, column 520, stated that the fees paid to leading counsel in this case were earned from January 1991 and amounted to £137,405. Mr. Cocks was in fact formally instructed on 15 March 1991 and the amount given in my previous answer erroneously included a payment relating to another case. The total amount paid to Mr. Cocks is as set out in the table.
§ Mr. O'BrienTo ask the Attorney-General what inquiries he made about the availability of Mr. David Cocks in relation to the trial of Mr. Roger Levitt; what account was taken of the probable length of the trial if contested; and what assessment he has made as to the availability of Mr. Cocks in respect of a contested trial. [30402]
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe prosecution was brought by the Serious Fraud Office. I am informed by the Serious Fraud Office that it formally instructed Mr. David Cocks QC on 15 March 1991 on the basis that he would advise in relation to the Levitt case and subsequently conduct any proceedings which the director of the SFO decided to institute. The terms on which prosecuting counsel are instructed by the SFO require them to give a high degree of priority to the conduct of the case. The estimated length of any trial varied, but Mr. Cocks was at all stages expected to be available to conduct a contested trial. The SFO was at no stage given any reason to doubt his availability for as long as was necessary and Mr. Cocks has assured me that he was indeed available to conduct the trial for as long as necessary.
§ Mr. O'BrienTo ask the Attorney-General (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, East of 19 June,Official Report, columns 68–70, on discussions between counsel for the Crown and for Roger Levitt, precisely what pleas were in issue at each discussion and specifically when the Crown decided for the purposes of discussions or plea that it was appropriate for Levitt not to admit to actual theft by himself; [30403]
(2) what indications as to the acceptability of possible pleas had been made by the defence to the Crown before the judge discussed sentence on Mr. Roger Levitt on 22 November 1993. [30407]
§ The Attorney-GeneralIn June 1992 counsel for Mr. Reed approached leading counsel for the Crown, Mr. David Cocks QC, with an offer of a plea of guilty by Mr. Reed to the offence of fraudulent trading involving the704W failure to invest funds in accordance with investors' instructions and the sending of false investor valuations. This approach was repeated on a number of occasions. On each occasion Mr. Cocks said the plea would not be acceptable.
Shortly before 2 November 1993, leading counsel for Mr. Price approached Mr. Cocks and asked whether the Crown would be prepared to accept a plea to fraudulent trading on the basis of the FIMBRA particular from Mr. Levitt, Mr. Reed and Mr. McNamara. Mr. Cocks said that, if such discussions were to be pursued, they must involve counsel for all the defendants. On 2 November 1993 Mr. Cocks told counsel for all the defendants that the proposed pleas were insufficient but that if Mr. Levitt and Mr. Reed would plead guilty to the FIMBRA particular of fraudulent trading and "something sensible" on the investor side such as counts 3 and 5 of the indictment—specimen counts of sending false valuations to investors, he thought that serious consideration would be given to such an approach. On 4 November there were further discussions between counsel, other than counsel for Mr. Levitt, about possible pleas. In a discussion believed to have taken place on 5 November Mr. Cocks repeated to leading counsel for Mr. Levitt—Mr. Goldberg—what he had said about possible pleas on 2 November but no such indication of a plea was forthcoming. There was further discussion arising from the suggestion made by leading counsel for Mr. Price when both junior prosecuting counsel spoke to Mr. Goldberg, and his junior, on 9 November 1993 and said that although they had no firm instructions, if Mr. Levitt offered to plead guilty to the false investor valuations not as separate counts but as particulars of fraudulent trading, as well as pleading guilty to the particular alleging the deception of FIMBRA, this might be acceptable to the Crown. Mr. Goldberg informed Mr. Cocks on 11 November 1993 that Mr. Levitt would not be offered a plea of guilty to any part of the indictment.
The trial thereafter proceeded and I refer the hon. Member to my answer to question No. 30405.
On Sunday 21 November 1993 junior counsel for Mr. Levitt telephoned first junior prosecuting counsel and said that Mr. Levitt was considering entering a plea of guilty on the FIMBRA part of the fraudulent trading count, on the strict understanding that all other counts would be left on the file. Mr. Fisher replied that prosecuting counsel would need to have a conference with the SFO. About half an hour later junior counsel for Mr. Levitt again telephoned Mr. Fisher and said that she had forgotten to mention that, if the plea was acceptable to the Crown, Mr. Goldberg would seek to seek to see the trial judge to ask for an indication as to sentence.
On Monday 22 November 1993 Mr. Goldberg made his offer in writing to Mr. Cocks of the plea that was finally entered. He wrote that if the offer was acceptable to the Crown he was instructed to seek an indication from the trial judge on sentence and that Mr. Levitt would then decide what to do.
There were no counts of theft against Mr. Levitt included in the indictment.
§ Mr. O'BrienTo ask the Attorney-General what charges and how many were originally brought against Mr. Roger Levitt; what was the sequence of events by 705W which (a) their number and (b) their gravity was reduced; if he will give the date on which each charge was dropped; and what assessment he has made as to the extent to which the sequence of events conformed to the highest standards of conducting cases. [30405]
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe proceedings against Mr. Levitt were transferred to Southwark crown court on 15 April 1992 on the basis of 62 charges, consisting of five charges of conspiracy to defraud and 56 substantive offences of dishonesty, including certain charges of theft, relating to private investors or institutions, and a further charge of fraudulent trading which was intended to embrace all aspects of the alleged fraudulent conduct. Most of these charges were alternatives.
When the indictment was preferred it was necessary to reduce the number of charges to facilitate presentation of the case to the jury. The indictment, signed on 12 June 1992, contained 22 counts. Count 1 alleging fraudulent trading by TLG Ltd. was fully particularised and included a particular alleging:
producing and causing to be produced to officers of FIMBRA documents, viz: a profit and loss schedule of income, schedules and a balance sheet, fee notes, invoices, letters, and minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors of Levitt Group (Holdings) plc, which were false, misleading and deceptive in that they purported to show that fees of £20,738,321 had been received by Levitt Group Limited as a result of personal advisory work carried out by the said ROGER JOSEPH LEVITT during the 18 month period to 30 June 1990.Counts 2 to 5 related to investor funds prior to the period of fraudulent trading and comprised two specimen counts, 2 and 4 of obtaining investors' funds by deception and two specimen counts, 3 and 5, of false accounting in relation to false valuations sent to investors. Count 6 alleged the dishonest obtaining of funds from an investor during the period of fraudulent trading. The remaining counts of 7 to 22 were alternatives to count 1 and involved the sale of shares and options, the obtaining of loans by Mr. Levitt and misleading FIMBRA.
After the indictment had been preferred the Court of Appeal on 28 July 1992 gave guidance in Blue Arrow about the drafting of indictments in serious fraud cases. This caused the prosecution during the preparatory hearing held between 23 and 25 February 1993 to seek to clarify further the issues for the jury by relying on the count of fraudulent trading alone and reducing the number of particulars specified in that count. Counts 2 to 5—the specimen investor counts relating to the period which preceded the alleged fraudulent trading—were severed so as to be the subject of a separate trial. The allegations particularised in counts 6 to 22 formed part of the allegations particularised in count 1. On 25 February 1993 the trial judge ruled that count 1 was
properly drawn and fairly represents the thrust of the criminality alleged by the CrownOn 19 May 1993, following an application by Mr. Goldberg, the trial judge ruled inadmissible on count- 1 the evidence of the dishonest way in which the moneys drip-fed into TLG Ltd. by Mr. Levitt had been obtained. I am informed by prosecuting counsel that Mr. Goldberg's application was presented on the clear understanding that Mr. Levitt would not place in issue the circumstances in which the money was obtained and that the trial of Mr. Levitt proceeded on this basis.
706WAfter Mr. Cocks had opened the case for the prosecution Mr. Goldberg made an opening speech on 15 November 1993 in the course of which he asserted that the funds drip-fed into TLG Ltd by Mr. Levitt were his own money. The Crown applied to discharge the jury on the basis that Mr. Goldberg had misled them and undermined the basis of the earlier rulings in the case. The trial Judge declined the application. He said that the Mr. Goldberg's opening speech had
largely subverted the necessary and acknowledged basis of my earlier rulingsand hadgravely misrepresented the true position".The Crown intended to renew its application to discharge the jury on 22 November 1993, and notice of this intention was communicated to the defence on 19 November 1993. This application was not made because on 22 November 1993 Mr. Levitt offered to plead guilty to count 1 of the indictment on the basis that he would admit the particular of the indictment alleging that he had misled FIMBRA. The acceptability of that plea was discussed by prosecuting counsel with the director of the Serious Fraud Office the same day. Counsel advised that the plea should be accepted having taken account of all the circumstances. The director instructed counsel to accept this plea.
It is the duty of the SFO as an independent prosecuting authority to act with the due diligence and complete propriety. It is the duty of prosecuting counsel to act as ministers of justice and to conduct the case in accordance with their proper professional judgment, having regard to all the circumstances. I am satisfied that they did so.
§ Mr. O'BrienTo ask the Attorney-General on what date and in what circumstances it was communicated to Queen's Counsel for the Crown or his junior that Mr. Roger Levitt would agree to plead only to a charge which would result in a non-custodial sentence. [30406]
§ The Attorney-GeneralI refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, East given on 15 June 1995,Official Report, 19 June 1995, columns 68–70. I have been consistently assured by prosecuting counsel that there was no such communication.
§ Mr. O'BrienTo ask the Attorney-General, what assessment he has made of whether the reported comments of Queen's counsel for the Crown after the Mr. Roger Levitt trial in respect of(a) the hearing of fraud cases by judges and (b) the sentence passed on the defendant were appropriate for a Crown prosecutor; and if he will make a statement. [30408]
§ The Attorney-GeneralSuch issues are governed by the code of conduct for the Bar of England and Wales. Counsel appearing for the Crown are not subject to any special restrictions.