§ Lord Spensasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the decision of the Department of Trade and Industry, on the advice of the Serious Fraud Office, not to appeal the 1988 judgment of the Licensed Dealers Tribunal in the matter of TWH Management Ltd., which found, inter alia, that there had been "no false market" and "no breach of the Takeover Code" in certain share transactions, in case failure would have prejudiced the forthcoming Guinness prosecutions, had been discussed with the then Attorney General; and [HL2580]
50WAWhether the decision not to disclose to the defendants in the second Guinness appeal in 1996 (despite the undertakings given by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) the letter of 13 January 1989 from Mrs. J. D. Olson of the SFO to the Department of Trade and Industry advising against any appeal from the judgment of the Licensed Dealers Tribunal in the matter of TWH Management Ltd, in case the forthcoming Guinness prosecutions were prejudiced, was discussed or agreed with the then Attorney General; and [HL2581]
How many meetings and discussions have been held between employees of the Serious Fraud Office and the Attorney General and his staff on the matter of the Guinness prosecutions and the subsequent appeals; and, further to the Written Answer of the Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 30 June (WA 77), whether this involvement indicates more than a "statutory superintendence" role of the Attorney General in the prosecution of the Guinness trials; and [HL2582]
Whether a failure by the Serious Fraud Office to disclose a relevant document to the defence in criminal proceedings, in breach of undertakings to the court, would fall within the scope of the "statutory superintendence" referred to in the Written Answer of the Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 30 June (WA 77). [HL2583]
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonThe Attorney General has routine meetings with the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss departmental business, including, in general terms, the conduct of cases of high profile or particular difficulty. These are supplemented by additional meetings to discuss specific cases and issues as appropriate. However, statutory responsibility for the conduct of all cases remains with the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, who, together with her staff and prosecuting counsel, are responsible for day-to-day operation decisions in relation to particular cases.
The Questions tabled by the noble Lord are, in part, hypothetical and in part founded on assertions of fact which I do not necessarily accept. He should seek in the manner set out in my Answer of 30 June 1998, the assistance of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, who can determine the extent to which it is appropriate to respond.