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 printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member printed question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

178345

	registered interest
	date	06/02/2015
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Hunting: Prosecutions
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to investigate the basis on which the Crown Prosecution Service brought forward a prosecution against Terrence Potter and Paul Whitehead of the Lunesdale Hunt.
	tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
	uin	HL4733
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/02/2015 answer text <p>There is no plan to investigate the basis upon which this prosecution was brought.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The prosecution was brought following an investigation by North Yorkshire Police into the alleged commission of a wildlife crime. The two defendants were originally charged by the police to appear in Court on 5 September 2014. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) subsequently undertook a review of the case, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and determined, firstly, that there was a realistic prospect of conviction and, secondly, that it was in the public interest to prosecute.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>As the allegations were denied, the case was listed for trial before York Magistrates’ Court on 21 January 2015. On the day of trial, two key prosecution witnesses who produced video evidence of the offence were unavailable to attend court. The CPS had previously made an application to adjourn and reschedule the trial. Due to an administrative failing this application was made very close to the trial date and it was refused by the court. The trial then took place in the absence of these two witnesses and without their evidence being heard. The Court found no case to answer against each defendant.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Wallace of Tankerness question first answered 19/02/2015 09:34:31 answering member 630 label Biography information for Lord Wallace of Tankerness
	tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

178346

	registered interest
	date	06/02/2015
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Hunting: Prosecutions
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what scrutiny the Crown Prosecution Service makes of any evidence presented to them by the League Against Cruel Sports alleging breaches of the Hunting Act 2004 before deciding to prosecute.
	tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
	uin	HL4734
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/02/2015 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes following an investigation and referral of a case by the police. If the police charge an offence under the Hunting Act 2004 without a request for advice, a crown prosecutor reviews the case following charge. Each case will be reviewed in accordance with the Full Code Test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Where the evidential and public interest stages of the Full Code Test are met, then the CPS will robustly prosecute.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The prosecutor must consider whether each piece of evidence is admissible, reliable and credible – this would include being satisfied that it was lawfully obtained. Evidence provided by the League against Cruel Sports would be looked at in the same way as any other evidence.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Wallace of Tankerness question first answered 19/02/2015 09:35:00 answering member 630 label Biography information for Lord Wallace of Tankerness
	tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

178347

	registered interest
	date	06/02/2015
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Hunting: Prosecutions
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to investigate the basis on which the Crown Prosecution Service brought charges against Mr Liddle of the Melbreak Hunt, charges which were then dropped.
	tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
	uin	HL4735
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/02/2015 answer text <p>Cumbria Constabulary charged Mr Liddle with hunting a wild mammal with dogs (contrary to Sections 1 and 6 of the Hunting Act 2004) and allowing dogs to be dangerously out of control (contrary to Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991). This followed an incident on 9 March 2014 when members of the public witnessed a fox being killed by a pack of hounds on land near Buttermere. The police were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr Liddle and issued a postal requisition on 6 June 2014. These offences fall within the category of offences where the charging decision rests with the police. Mr Liddle appeared at Workington Magistrates Court on 27 June 2014 and pleaded not guilty to all charges. Following receipt of all the evidential material from the police, the case was reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service’s North West Area Wildlife Crime Lead. He applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors and determined that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction having considered all of the required elements of the offence. Following consultation with Cumbria Constabulary the case was discontinued on 10 September 2014. The Crown Prosecution Service did not, therefore, bring charges against Mr Liddle. The case was brought to an end after the full evidential material was reviewed.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Wallace of Tankerness question first answered 19/02/2015 09:34:10 answering member 630 label Biography information for Lord Wallace of Tankerness
	tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

178348

	registered interest
	date	06/02/2015
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Hunting: Prosecutions
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to investigate the basis on which the Crown Prosecution Service brought charges against Donald Summersgill and joint-masters Rupert Andrews and David Greenwood of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds.
	tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
	uin	HL4736
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/02/2015 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) properly applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors to the available evidence when making a decision to charge the three individuals with offences under the Hunting Act 2004. Having applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the decision was that at that time there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for the charges laid against all three men.</p><p>Prosecutors must take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as a case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. As a consequence of further information being made available it later became apparent that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. The case was duly stopped.</p><p>There is no reason to believe that the CPS in reaching the decision to charge these three individuals did anything which requires an investigation into its conduct of the case.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Wallace of Tankerness question first answered 25/02/2015 13:22:13 answering member 630 label Biography information for Lord Wallace of Tankerness
	tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

451131

	registered interest
	date	08/02/2016
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Al-Sweady Inquiry
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Director of Public Prosecutions about the possibility of charges of fraud, corruption, conspiracy and attempting to pervert the course of justice being brought against lawyers working for Leigh Day and Public Interest Lawyers with regard to the Al Sweady case.
	tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
	uin	HL5997
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/02/2016 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service routinely provides the Attorney General with updates on cases and casework issues. In accordance with the practice adopted by previous Law Officers the Attorney General does not usually comment on which individual cases are raised with him.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie question first answered 22/02/2016 14:57:18 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
	tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

451132

	registered interest
	date	08/02/2016
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Mark Pearson
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to take Mark Pearson to trial for sexual assault, and the claim by the defence solicitor in that case that the CPS initially provided amended and misleading video evidence to the court.
	tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
	uin	HL5998
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/02/2016 answer text <p>The CPS's function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider.</p><p> </p><p>The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, as this can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and, if so, whether the public interest lies in prosecuting.</p><p> </p><p>It is open to the defence in any crown court case to argue, after the prosecution has closed its case, that the evidence is too weak for the decision to be left to the jury. In this particular case the judge clearly considered that the decision was properly a matter for the jury.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie question first answered 19/02/2016 12:46:53 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
	tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

453536

	registered interest
	date	22/02/2016
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Trials
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Keen of Elie on 19 February (HL5998), whether there are any circumstances under which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) may alter the speed at which video evidence is shown in court, and if so, whether the CPS is obliged to inform the court that the speed of the video evidence has been altered.
	tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
	uin	HL6238
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2016 answer text <p>Video evidence is routinely examined in court during criminal trials either frame by frame or at different speeds in order to aid the court’s understanding. In the case of image stills, time stamps can be used to indicate the passage of time between images. Both defence and prosecution lawyers are under a professional duty not to mislead the court.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie question first answered 04/03/2016 12:04:10 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
	tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

453537

	registered interest
	date	22/02/2016
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Mark Pearson
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Keen of Elie on 19 February (HL5998) regarding the case of Mark Pearson, who in the Crown Prosecution Service made the decision to present to the court a video that was run at half the normal speed.
	tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
	uin	HL6239
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2016 answer text <p>In the case concerned there was no video evidence. The police created a disc containing a series of still images with gaps of around a second in time. The timing of each image was clearly shown. The disc was served on the defence but was not played in court by the prosecution. The defence adduced their own disc as part of their case. The prosecution did not rely on the still images because at the trial the identification of the defendant was not in issue.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie question first answered 04/03/2016 12:04:40 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
	tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

516553

	registered interest
	date	28/04/2016
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Terrorism: British Nationals Abroad
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have not prosecuted the reported 350 Jihadis who have returned to the UK and are suspected of having fought in Syria or Iraq.
	tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
	uin	HL8065
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/05/2016 answer text The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has successfully prosecuted 35 cases involving 54 defendants who have returned to the UK and are suspected of having fought in Syria and / or Iraq. It currently has 13 such ongoing prosecutions involving 30 defendants. The Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland (PPSNI) is also dealing with one ongoing Syria-related prosecution. If there is evidence that people are going abroad to engage in terrorist activity, they can be arrested and prosecuted. They can also be arrested and prosecuted if they return to the UK. There are a wide range of offences that can be used to prosecute such individuals but each case has to be considered individually on its merits and whether an arrest or prosecution can take place will depend on the evidence available. If the police refer a case to the CPS, they consider whether the test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors is met. That is, whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for any offence and, if so, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie question first answered 11/05/2016 11:30:49 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
	tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

819328

	registered interest
	date	09/01/2018
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Prosecutions
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the use by the CPS of the phrase “insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction” in cases where there is no evidence at all against the accused; and what guidance they have given, or intend to give, to the CPS in respect of such use.
	tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
	uin	HL4533
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/01/2018 answer text <p>The Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) sets out the general principles Crown prosecutors must follow when they make decisions on cases.</p><p>The full Code test has two stages. Crown prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect or defendant on each charge. If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown prosecutors must proceed to the second stage and decide if a prosecution is needed in the public interest.</p><p>The Crown Prosecution Service has adopted the wording recommended in the 2016 report of Sir Richard Henriques for public announcements of decisions not to charge an individual, namely that “the case failed to meet the evidential test”. That terminology is not a comment on the strength or weakness of the evidence in any particular case.</p><p>The test applied by prosecutors continues to be that set out in the Code.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie question first answered 16/01/2018 16:55:10 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
	tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra