Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed question first answered question first ministerially corrected answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

100080

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many judicial reviews there were involving Government departments according to records held by the (a) Treasury Solicitor and (b) Administrative Court Office in each of the last four years; and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each such year.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211271
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>The Treasury Solicitor’s Department holds records relating only to those cases in which it has acted. The Treasury Solicitor represents most, but not all, government departments in litigation. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs normally conducts its own litigation. According to records held by the Treasury Solicitor, the number of judicial reviews involving government departments in which it has acted in each of the last four years is as follows:</p><p>2010 – 8,566</p><p>2011 – 9,603</p><p>2012 – 10,274</p><p>2013 – 16,449</p><p>Information relating to how many of those reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each year is not held centrally and could not be created without incurring disproportionate cost.</p><p><del class="ministerial">The Administrative Court Office does not collate the information requested centrally and determining the number of reviews and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part would incur a disproportionate cost.</del></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The information requested in respect of the Administrative Court Office is published online at <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls</a> . The 2013 data is not currently available.</ins></p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 28/10/2014 15:10:43 question first ministerially corrected 05/01/2015 17:35:17 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 24759 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1663023

	registered interest
	date	13/10/2023
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Serious Fraud Office
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many corporate self-reports the Serious Fraud Office has received in each of the last five years.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
	uin	200877
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/10/2023 answer text <p>In financial year 2018/19 the SFO received <del class="ministerial">8</del><ins class="ministerial">7</ins> corporate self-reports.</p><p>In financial year 2019/20 the SFO received <del class="ministerial">17</del><ins class="ministerial">6</ins> corporate self-reports.</p><p>In financial year 2020/21 the SFO received <del class="ministerial">11</del><ins class="ministerial">3</ins> corporate self-reports.</p><p>In financial year 2021/22 the SFO received 8 corporate self-reports.</p><p>In financial year 2022/23 the SFO received 8 corporate self-reports.</p> answering member constituency Mid Dorset and North Poole answering member printed Michael Tomlinson question first answered 18/10/2023 09:37:34 question first ministerially corrected 23/10/2023 15:52:36 answering member 4497 label Biography information for Michael Tomlinson previous answer version 98035 answering member constituency Mid Dorset and North Poole answering member printed Michael Tomlinson answering member 4497 label Biography information for Michael Tomlinson
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1507019

	registered interest
	date	20/09/2022
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Unaoil
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how much the Serious Fraud Office has spent on (a) the (i) investigation and (ii) prosecution of former Unaoil employees and (b) (I) defending and (II) paying appellants’ costs in the appeals of those cases.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
	uin	51483
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/09/2022 answer text <p>The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) does not disclose the costs of its cases as this risks prejudicing the administration of justice and is against the public interest.</p><p>the SFO legal costs settled with defendants to date amount to £2.15m. The figure was published in the SFO's recent <a href="https://www.sfo.gov.uk/download/annual-report-and-accounts-2020-2021/" target="_blank">Annual Report and Accounts</a>. Other settlements have yet to be confirmed. <strong></strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Mid Dorset and North Poole answering member printed Michael Tomlinson question first answered 23/09/2022 08:50:13 answering member 4497 label Biography information for Michael Tomlinson
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1507021

	registered interest
	date	20/09/2022
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Unaoil
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how much the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) spent on the (a) Employment Tribunal Mr T Martin v Serious Fraud Office and (b) SFO’s subsequent appeal of that tribunal decision.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
	uin	51484
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/09/2022 answer text <p>The Employment Tribunal case in question initially concluded in February 2021. The cost to the SFO at that time was approximately £83,000.</p><p>The associated Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded in July 2022. The proceedings have been remitted to the Employment Tribunal, a date is yet to be confirmed, and costs will be finalised once this has concluded.</p> answering member constituency Mid Dorset and North Poole answering member printed Michael Tomlinson question first answered 23/09/2022 11:15:42 answering member 4497 label Biography information for Michael Tomlinson
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1471792

	registered interest
	date	20/06/2022
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Serious Fraud Office: Resignations
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many applications have been submitted to the Advisory Committee on Public Appointments by civil servants regarding the business roles they intend to take up after leaving their positions with the Serious Fraud Office in the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
	uin	21132
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/06/2022 answer text <p>During this period, one application was made to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) by a former Civil Servant following employment at the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). This application was made by former SFO Director Sir David Green.</p><p> </p><p>The details of Sir David’s application are available <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-david-director-of-the-serious-fraud-office-acoba-recommendation" target="_blank">here</a>.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk question first answered 23/06/2022 16:35:09 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1402653

	registered interest
	date	13/01/2022
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Serious Fraud Office
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the oral Answer of 6 January 2022, Official Report, column 146, on the Criminal Justice System: Disclosure between Parties, when the independent review on the disclosure failings at the Serious Fraud Office will commence; who will be conducting that review; and what the (a) timescale and (b) terms of reference for that review are.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
	uin	103528
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/01/2022 answer text <p>The details of the review, including the intended timescales and the terms of reference, will be published once they have been agreed. I am committed to ensuring that this review is conducted as quickly as possible.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk question first answered 18/01/2022 09:08:19 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1503595

	registered interest
	date	02/09/2022
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Serious Fraud Office
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how much her Department spent on the (a) Calvert-Smith review and (b) Altman review of the Serious Fraud Office.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
	uin	45319
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/09/2022 answer text <p>The costs of Sir David Calvert-Smith’s independent review into the Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO) handling of the Unaoil case (<em>R. v Akle &amp; Anor</em>), which was commissioned by the Attorney General, are still being finalised. The costs to date to the Attorney General’s Office are £84,571.90. There are some costs outstanding, but it is anticipated these will not increase the overall cost of the review significantly. The total costs will be recovered from the SFO.</p><p> </p><p>The cost of Brian Altman QC’s independent review of the collapse of <em>R v. Woods &amp; Marshall</em>, which was commissioned by the Director of the SFO, was £359,442.37. This was paid for by the SFO.</p><p> </p><p>Both reviews presented valuable recommendations and the implementation of these remain a priority for the Law Officers and the Director of the SFO.</p> answering member constituency Northampton North answering member printed Michael Ellis question first answered 08/09/2022 12:00:36 answering member 4116 label Biography information for Sir Michael Ellis
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1437520

	registered interest
	date	02/03/2022
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Rape: Prosecutions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, whether she plans to implement the recommendations from the Criminal Justice Joint Inspection into the police and CPS's response to rape post-charge in full; what her timetable is for implementing those recommendations; and if she will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
	uin	133142
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/03/2022 answer text The CPS has welcomed the recent Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (CJJI) report on how well the criminal justice system serves survivors of rape and has largely accepted all the recommendations within it that relate directly to their work. They will use the report’s findings and recommendations to further inform their response to rape prosecutions and to build on the significant work undertaken so far, which has focussed on the following three main areas of work:<ul><li>better collaboration with the police from the very start of an investigation, taking an offender-centric approach to case-building;</li><li>supporting prosecutors and expanding the size of specialist units so that they are properly resourced to respond to these challenging and complex cases; and</li><li>improving the support given to victims, and recognising the trauma they experience.</li></ul>On the timeframes for implementing the two recommendations relating to communicating with victims, the CPS has already commenced a vital programme of work to improve how they communicate with victims. As part of this, the CPS has commissioned crucial research into victims’ needs to understand what victims need and want, so the CPS can serve them better. This research is part of a fundamental review into how the CPS can improve communication with victims. Although this three-phased programme is underway, the CPS will require time to complete it, to ensure that it fundamentally improves the quality of communication with victims. The CPS’s full response to the report and its recommendations can be found <a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/cps-response-criminal-justice-joint-inspection-cjji-how-well-criminal-justice-system" target="_blank">here</a>. answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk question first answered 07/03/2022 09:36:16 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

423503

	registered interest
	date	23/10/2015
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Ministers: Codes of Practice
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues in the Cabinet Office on the removal from the Ministerial Code of a reference to Ministers having a duty to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations and to uphold the administration of justice.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
	uin	13253
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2015 answer text <p>Information relating to internal discussion and advice is not normally disclosed.</p> answering member constituency Kenilworth and Southam answering member printed Jeremy Wright question first answered 28/10/2015 14:39:43 answering member 1560 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Wright
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

443315

	registered interest
	date	07/01/2016
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Juries
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 5 January 2016 to Question 20564, how many people were charged with jury (a) intimidation and (b) tampering in each of the last five years.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
	uin	21435
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/01/2016 answer text <p>Section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 creates two offences:</p><p>S.51(1) creates an offence directed at acts against a person who assists in an investigation of an offence or who is a witness or potential witness or juror or potential juror whilst an investigation or trial is in progress</p><p>S.51(2) creates an offence directed at acts against a person who assisted in an investigation of an offence or who was a witness or juror after an investigation or trial has been concluded.</p><p>The records held by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) identify the number of offences in which a prosecution commenced and reached a first hearing in the magistrates’ courts, rather than the number of defendants prosecuted. A single defendant may be prosecuted for multiple offences.</p><p>The number of offences charged under s.51(1) and s.51(2) are as follows:</p><br /><table><tbody><tr><td><p><br></p></td><td><p><br></p></td><td><p>2010-2011</p></td><td><p>2011-2012</p></td><td><p>2012-2013</p></td><td><p>2013-2014</p></td><td><p>2014-2015</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 51(1)</p></td><td><p>Intimidate a witness / juror</p></td><td><p>3,275</p></td><td><p>2,630</p></td><td><p>2,148</p></td><td><p>2,066</p></td><td><p>2,202</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 51(2)</p></td><td><p>Do an act which harmed a witness / juror</p></td><td><p>102</p></td><td><p>166</p></td><td><p>99</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>109</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 51(2)</p></td><td><p>Threaten a witness / juror</p></td><td><p>240</p></td><td><p>172</p></td><td><p>118</p></td><td><p>122</p></td><td><p>129</p></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>The proportion of CPS cases that result in a guilty plea has increased from 67.2% in 10/11 to 74.5% in 14/15 which means that there are fewer cases that are likely to be subject to the sorts of acts covered by s.51(1) during the course of the prosecution.</p><p>Also, s.51(1) covers intimidation of juror or potential jurors. The number of crown court trials have also been reducing over the period in question by 9.5%, again resulting in fewer cases where S.51(1) offences are likely to apply.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland question first answered 13/01/2016 15:14:30 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter