HC Deb 22 February 1996 vol 272 cc284-5W
Mrs. Clwyd

To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the criminal trials since 1966 at which Governments have invoked public interest immunity certificates on the basis of(a) class claim and (b) contents claim; and on what external legal advice he instructed Ministers that they must sign the PH certificates in the case of (i) Matrix Churchill and (ii) Ordtec. [16428]

The Attorney-General

No central record is held of public interest immunity certificates signed by Ministers. I list below the criminal cases in which PII certificates are known to have been used, on the basis of information provided by the prosecuting authorities for which I am responsible—the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. In each case an indication is given of whether the claim was made on the basis of contents, class or both. The information has been obtained from those officials likely to have the relevant knowledge, and is not necessary exhaustive.

1989

  • R v Pottle and Randle (Class)
  • R v Batley (Class)
  • R v Saunders and others (Class)

1990

  • R v Kokabi (Class)
  • R v Coren and Greenwood (Class)
  • R v Deller, Page and Rycott (Class)

1991

  • R v NatWest Investment Bank Ltd. and others Class)

1992

  • Latimer, Hegan, Bell and Allen v Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland (Class)
  • R v Roberts. Davis and Williams (Both)
  • R v Bennett (Class)

1993

  • R v Attwell, Donaldson and Style (Both)
  • R v Mitchell and Mitchell (Class)
  • R v Smith (Both)

1994

  • R v Walker and Aquilina (Class)
  • R v Fryers and Jack (Both)
  • R v Mackin, Doherty and Macauley (Both)
  • R v McMonagle and Heffernan (Both)
  • R v Edgar (Class)
  • R v McNulty (Both)
  • R v Ohadhmaill (Both)

1995

  • R v Murphy (Contents)
  • R v Phipps and Nodjoema (Both)
  • R v Baalbaki (Both)
  • R v Baker, Hay and McCulloch (Both)
  • R v Mostafa (Both)
  • R v Paget-Harrison (Both)
  • Another case (Both)

The advice which I gave on PII in the Matrix Churchill trial was based on a joint opinion, dated 10 January 1992, from Mr. John Laws, then first junior Treasury counsel, common law, and now a judge of the High Court, Mr. Michael Kalisher QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association 1991–93, and Mr. Nicholas Ainley.

The PII claims upheld by the Court of Appeal in Ordtec were made on the basis of a further joint opinion obtained from Mr. Stephen Richards and Mr. William Charles, first junior Treasury counsel, common law and chancery, dated 9 October 1995, following the decision of the House of Lords in Ex parte Wiley (1994). Copies of both these opinions are in the Library.

Mr. Tony Banks

To ask the Attorney-General what steps he proposes to take in respect of the fact that he does not accept that he was not personally at fault and that the issues that had been raised by Mr. Heseltine's stand on PII certificates did not fall into the category of mundane, routine, run of the mill issues that could probably be left to be dealt with by officials. [16647]

The Attorney-General

Sir Richard Scott's criticism of my role results from the fact that he takes a fundamentally different view of the law on public interest immunity. My advice to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was given with great care and was fully in accordance with the law as it then stood. It involved the preparation of a specially drafted PII certificate which explained my right hon. Friend's role. The judge saw every document covered by the certificate and duly decided which should be disclosed, exactly as my right hon. Friend had been led to expect. The procedure was entirely fair.