| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Will the Home Secretary accept that, like him, I believe in the relentless pursuit of people accused of crimes against humanity? Will he also accept that, unlike him and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, I do not believe in the application of double standards to that pursuit? Does he know that many of my family were killed by the Nazis in the 1940s? Can he explain why the Government, who were so keen to pursue General Pinochet, have consistently stonewalled my attempts to get them to make representations to the Government of Syria over the case of Alois Brunner, Eichmann's right-hand man, whom they are still sheltering?
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when Konrad Kalejs, one of the very people who may have murdered the members of my family, was found to be in this country, he was not arrested, but bundled straight out of the country? I know that the researcher who was most qualified to advise the Home Secretary of the nature of Kalejs's crimes was not even contacted before the right hon. Gentleman kicked out this murderer, against whose crimes the crimes of Pinochet against leftists pale, if not into insignificance then into something far less horrible than what millions of victims suffered at the hands of the Nazis, whom the chattering classes evidently care so much less about.
Mr. Straw:
Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's very strong feelings when it comes to the holocaust. He knows that I, too, have personal reasons for understanding them. However, I wholly reject the argument about double standards. Indeed, my point to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was that it was precisely to avoid double standards that I sought to act as consistently as I could with regard to this
The hon. Gentleman referred to someone who was suspected of being a fugitive in Syria. It is the first time that the case has been made known to me. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations to me, I am happy to see him and follow them up.
The hon. Gentleman's point about Mr. Kalejs makes my point about Secretaries of States and courts having to act according to the rule of law, both national and international. The simple fact, as everybody knows, was that no extradition warrant had been received in respect of Kalejs.
Mr. Straw:
Although I am endowed with some powers, I do not have powers of arrest, except in very marginal circumstances relating to immigration offences when we wish people to leave the country and they refuse to do so. As Kalejs left voluntarily, there was no power whatever to detain the man. That is the truth of it. I had the matter examined with very great care. I do not know which researcher the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but we were in contact with a number of researchers, and I was in contact with representatives of the Jewish community.
Of course I understand the demand that if people are alleged to have committed serious crimes, however long ago that may have been and whatever the country, they should be brought to justice. I see it as part of my responsibility to ensure that that happens, but it has to happen within a framework of the rule of law.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
The Home Secretary is a candid and reflective person. With the huge benefit of hindsight, is there anything at any stage that he would have done differently?
Mr. Straw:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I have certain wishes, and have already expressed the thought that it would be in everyone's interest if the procedure for extradition were simplified both in high profile cases such as this one and in more routine cases. With the benefit of hindsight, I can say of the key decisions that I have taken--the original decision not to quash the extradition warrant, two successive authorities to proceed, the decision to ask for independent medical examination and the decision I have announced today--that I would not have taken any of them differently.
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston):
With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the role of the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of Senator Pinochet.
Earlier today, the CPS, as prosecuting authority for England and Wales, advised the Metropolitan police service that the material provided by the Kingdom of Spain for the purposes of extradition proceedings would not be admissible in a criminal prosecution in England and Wales and could not be put into admissible form without a full police investigation. On the material available to the CPS, therefore, there is no realistic prospect in this jurisdiction of convicting Senator Pinochet of any criminal offence.
The CPS also advised the Metropolitan police service that, in view of the independent medical report on Senator Pinochet, commissioned by the Home Secretary, and in view of representations made to the Home Secretary concerning the report, no court in England and Wales would allow a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place, whatever the evidence. Following that advice, the MPS decided that no purpose would be served in seeking to effect an arrest of Senator Pinochet.
Those decisions were necessary because of article 7 of the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The convention provides that if a state does not extradite, it must consider whether to prosecute the person itself. Accordingly, following the Home Secretary's decision not to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain, the Spanish extradition papers were submitted formally to the CPS as the independent prosecuting authority for England and Wales. The CPS in turn formally referred the papers to the MPS, which is responsible for investigating offences and deciding whether to arrest or charge people.
In fact, the papers had previously been supplied to the CPS and the police and had been carefully studied by them, so both the CPS and the police were in a position to announce their decisions today. However, before I say more about that, I should set out the involvement of the CPS in the case. The CPS had a role as agent for the Kingdom of Spain, which arose after Senator Pinochet's arrest on 16 October 1998, pursuant to a warrant issued by the fifth central magistrates court in Madrid. On 18 October 1998, the CPS commenced acting as agent on behalf of the Kingdom of Spain in the extradition proceedings, and it has continued to act for the Kingdom of Spain throughout the extradition process.
In its role as agent for the Kingdom of Spain, the CPS acted in accordance with the instructions of the requesting state, which is in accordance with long-standing reciprocal arrangements between this jurisdiction and other countries. In doing so, it has been quite independent of the Government. In performing its role as agent for the Kingdom of Spain, the CPS has given confidential legal advice on the extradition proceedings and received instructions.
Let me turn to the separate and distinct function of the CPS in this matter, which is the main focus of this statement. That function is its role as the independent prosecuting authority for England and Wales, and its
involvement in that regard arose in two ways. First, in October 1998 two firms of solicitors, acting for a number of individuals, applied to the then Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Sir J. Morris), for consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet in this jurisdiction for offences of torture, contrary to section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and for offences of hostage taking, contrary to the Taking of Hostages Act 1982.
The papers in one of these applications were also copied by the solicitors to the MPS, which in turn sought the advice of the CPS as prosecuting authority. In those circumstances, my right hon. and learned Friend deemed it appropriate to liaise with the CPS before reaching a final conclusion on the applications for Law Officer consent to prosecute. The Attorney-General also received advice from senior Treasury counsel. Subsequently, he advised the solicitors that decisions on whether or not to grant Law Officer consent to prosecute are made by applying the tests set out in the code for Crown prosecutors, and that the legislation criminalising torture and hostage taking is not retrospective--a point later confirmed by a decision of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. He also advised that the material submitted in support of the applications contained insufficient admissible evidence against Senator Pinochet to justify the granting of Law Officer consent to prosecute for either offence. Consent to prosecute was, accordingly, refused.
I should add that a third firm of solicitors, acting for a number of Chileans, applied last week for my consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet for offences of torture. That application has been carefully considered and the advice of counsel was obtained. Again, the code of Crown prosecutors was applied to the decision-making process. The first requirement of the code is that there should be sufficient admissible evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction before a prosecution may follow. The application contained no evidence of a kind admissible in this jurisdiction, and I accordingly declined to grant my consent.
The second function of the CPS as prosecuting authority has been to consider the case for prosecution of Senator Pinochet in this jurisdiction under article 7 of the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The CPS and police recognised that article 7 might come into operation in respect of the Spanish extradition papers. To prepare for that contingency, the CPS obtained copies of all the relevant Spanish extradition papers in March and April 1999 in its capacity as the prosecuting authority for England and Wales. The MPS, as investigating authority, was also supplied with a copy of those papers. All that was done with the agreement of the Kingdom of Spain and the Home Office.
The Spanish extradition papers were allocated to lawyers in the CPS separate from those acting for the Kingdom of Spain. The provisional conclusion of the CPS was that the material provided by the Kingdom of Spain for the purposes of the extradition proceedings would not be admissible in a criminal prosecution in England and Wales, and that the material could not be made admissible without a full police investigation. The CPS advised the police along those lines. Whether or not the MPS institutes a full investigation in this or any other case is a matter for it to decide.
It may help the House to understand the provisional CPS conclusion if I explain that in European extradition proceedings it is not necessary to bring evidence before a court to show that a person has committed the offences of which he or she is accused. All that is necessary is that the court here must be satisfied that the allegations amount to an extradition crime and that the formal request complies with the requirements of the Extradition Act 1989 and the European convention on extradition of 1959. That explains why the CPS reached its provisional conclusion that, in the absence of a full investigation by the police, there was no admissible evidence for the purpose of a prosecution here.
In addition to those evidential considerations, the CPS--again in its role as independent prosecuting authority--received, in January, and with the consent of Senator Pinochet, a copy of the medical report prepared by the independent experts commissioned by the Home Secretary. The CPS has also seen representations made to the Home Secretary concerning that report.
The report and subsequent advice make it clear that Senator Pinochet's ill health is such that he would not be able to defend himself properly in any criminal prosecution brought in this country. The provisional CPS conclusion in the light of the material was that no court in England and Wales would allow a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place because of his ill health, whatever the evidence. Again, the CPS advised the police of that.
In reaching its provisional conclusions, the CPS consulted me and I agreed with them, after taking the best independent legal advice available. My right hon., noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General has not involved himself as a Law Officer in this case. He and I agreed that his previous patronage of Redress, from which he resigned on taking ministerial office in May 1997, meant that it would be more appropriate if I handled the case. The solicitors acting for Senator Pinochet were advised of that in September last year.
Following today's formal submission of the Spanish extradition papers to the CPS under article 7, the CPS has confirmed its provisional conclusions. First, the material in the possession of the CPS would not be admissible in any criminal prosecution in England and Wales, and could not provide a realistic prospect of conviction. Secondly, an investigation for which the police are responsible would be required to gather evidence admissible in this jurisdiction. Thirdly, whatever the evidence that might be available, no court in England and Wales would allow a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place in view of his ill health. I agree with those conclusions.
Accordingly, the CPS did not apply for my consent, in respect of the Spanish extradition material, to prosecute Senator Pinochet for torture. The Metropolitan police service and Senator Pinochet's lawyers were advised of the CPS's conclusions. The MPS, which has taken its own legal advice, decided not to arrest Senator Pinochet earlier today.
The House will also be aware that on 11 and 13 November and on 15 December 1998 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary received requests for the extradition of Senator Pinochet from Switzerland, France and Belgium. Further requests were received from France on 4 February last year and from the Kingdom of Belgium on 12 October last year.
On 9 December 1998, my right hon. Friend decided not to issue an authority to proceed with regard to the requests from France and Switzerland. On 27 January 1999, he decided not to issue an authority to proceed with regard to the request from Belgium. On 22 February 1999 and 19 November 1999 respectively, he decided not to issue an authority to proceed in respect of the second French and second Belgian requests.
Following my right hon. Friend's decisions, the extradition papers were submitted to the CPS as the prosecuting authority under article 7. The CPS, in turn, referred the papers to the MPS to enable the investigating authorities to consider them. The CPS also advised the police that the allegations contained in the Swiss, both French and both Belgian requests did not disclose offences that could be tried here, as the conduct alleged in each of the requests occurred before the relevant legislation came into force. Accordingly, the CPS did not apply for Law Officer consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet for torture in respect of the Swiss, French and Belgian extradition material.
In performing its role under article 7 of the convention in respect of the Swiss, French and Belgian material, the CPS also took into account the medical report commissioned by my right hon. Friend and the representations made to the him about Senator Pinochet's medical condition. As I said, the CPS concluded that no court in England and Wales would permit a trial of Senator Pinochet to take place in those circumstances, whatever the evidence.
The CPS consulted me about those matters and I agree with its conclusions.
2.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |