§ Mr. BakerTo ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the use of nolle prosequi in the case of Judge Richard Gee. [56324]
The Attorney-GeneralMy very firm rule in approaching cases involving persons in senior public positions is to do so with impartiality and objectivity so that the decision is fair in the sense that those concerned are treated no more favourably and no less favourably than any other citizen in the same position.
The charges against Judge Gee related to a mortgage fraud which operated between 1980 and 1988. In essence, the fraud involved false details being provided to lenders, of which the most important was the assertion that the applicant intended to reside in the property to be mortgaged. The effect was that the mortgage rate was lower than it would have been had the lenders known the true position—i.e. that the properties were to be rented. The alleged offences pre-dated the appointment of Richard Gee as a judge. His participation in the transactions was as a solicitor with a conveyancing practice. The prosecution was unable to prove any evidence of personal gain, although his firm would have received professional fees in relation to the conveyancing.
Judge Gee stood trial in the first half of 1998. Prior to that trial, his condition had begun to deteriorate so that the trial judge ordered postponement of the commencement of the trial by 3 months pending treatment to restore him to a position where he was fit to stand trial. The trial itself occupied several months and there then followed a jury deliberation of some 3 weeks—quite unprecedented, I believe, in this country for a case 2W involving only one defendant. As senior prosecuting counsel said at the Central Criminal Court on 7 October 1998, all concerned in the case observed his deterioration in that period.
The initial decision of the prosecution, with which I concurred, was to seek a retrial. The Crown Prosecution Service was, however, asked by the defence to consider medical reports obtained, including one from Professor John Gunn, a distinguished forensic scientist, which concluded that Judge Gee was unfit to stand trial. The prosecution commissioned Dr. Joseph to examine the defendant and prepare a report. He too came to the conclusion that Judge Gee was unfit to stand trial and it was clear that he was not likely to be fit to stand trial in the foreseeable future. It was therefore clear when I met with the Director of Public Prosecutions and prosecuting counsel to discuss the case that, the evidence being all one way, there was effectively no prospect of persuading the trial judge that the case could proceed. We all agreed that the most appropriate course was for me to enter a nolle prosequi because it accorded most closely to the reality of the situation: there was a case which the prosecution would have wished to put forward had the accused been fit to stand trial.
§ Mr. BakerTo ask the Attorney-General if he will abolish the legal power of nolle prosequi. [56325]