§ Lord Spensasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the cost to date of £434, 696 of the extradition proceedings against Peter Clarence Foster is justified in view of the failure of their case against "another person" mentioned in the written answer of the Lord Chancellor on 22 February [WA 103] on similar charges where full costs were awarded against the Serious Fraud Office. [HL1277]
§ The Lord ChancellorThe figure of £434, 696 reflects the costs of the investigation and prosecution as a whole, including those attributable to proceedings instituted against a third party which have since been terminated (and in which there was no order for costs made against the Serious Fraud Office). The factors which led to that decision in no way detract from the case against Peter Clarence Foster, which will continue.
§ Lord Spensasked Her Majesty's Government:
Who in the Serious Fraud Office is accountable for the expenditure of applications such as that involved in the extradition of Peter Clarence Foster. [HL1278]
§ The Lord ChancellorThe Director of the Serious Fraud Office is the accounting officer in respect of expenditure from monies voted by Parliament to the Serious Fraud Office; that includes costs associated with the investigation of this case and the preparation of the request for extradition. The cost of the conduct of extradition proceedings in Australia is borne by the authorities there in accordance with reciprocal arrangements.
37WA
§ Lord Spensasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the full details and the amount of money involved in each of the 16 charges for which Peter Clarence Foster is being extradited from Australia. [HL1279]
§ The Lord ChancellorThe evidence contained in the papers supporting the application to the Australian Government for the extradition of Peter Clarence Foster discloses the commission of 16 offences. Three of these offences were listed in the original extradition warrant and relate to offences of using a false instrument contrary to Section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. No value is specified in relation to these offences. The Australian authorities have been informed that Her Majesty's Government will seek waiver of the speciality rule in relation to the remaining 13 charges, which comprise a further six charges contrary to Section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (no value specified), six charges of furnishing false information contrary to Section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 (no value specified) and one charge of procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception in the sum of £29,484.80.