| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I begin by thanking the Solicitor-General for early sight of his statement and also for the assistance of his officials this morning.
The Solicitor-General told us that the evidence provided by Spain would not be admissible in criminal proceedings in this country. When did that become apparent to the CPS? Was it made clear in any of the several hearings in the courts during the past 15 months? When were the Spanish authorities told?
If there is no prospect of conviction in this country, does it follow that there has been, and remains, no prospect of conviction in Spain, France, Belgium or Switzerland?
Does it follow from what the Solicitor-General has said about Senator Pinochet's state of health that those four European democracies would also not allow a trial to take place in their jurisdictions--and if not, why not? Certainly, that is what the Home Secretary appeared to suggest a few moments ago. I presume that the Solicitor-General has made inquiries about that matter.
When did the Solicitor-General decide to refuse leave to prosecute General Pinochet under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Taking of Hostages Act 1982? When did he tell the four European states that I mentioned of that decision?
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to an application, last week, by a third firm of solicitors for consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet in this country. Has he reached a conclusion as to whether their evidence is admissible in any of the other four European states?
The hon. and learned Gentleman explained the law and procedure relating to European extradition proceedings. Irrespective of that, does the Home Secretary retain a discretion not to order extradition in any given case?
There remain in existence--if only formally--habeas corpus proceedings begun on 22 October 1999. What will happen to that case?
Finally, how will the hon. and learned Gentleman persuade the House and the public that this whole affair has been worth while and not just a lawyers' bonanza?
The Solicitor-General:
The material rolled in during the past year; it was continually assessed. At no point was it possible to say that the evidence was sufficient for a prosecution in this jurisdiction. As I explained to the House, under the extradition provisions the requesting state simply provides evidence of allegations; it does not have to provide detailed evidence.
I had no need to tell Spain, because the responsibility of the CPS was twofold. On extradition, it was acting as agent of Spain, but as an independent prosecuting authority, it was simply acting in accordance with the law of this jurisdiction.
There was no refusal on my part to prosecute. As I said in my statement, I was never asked to give consent. The CPS decided that there was no case to prosecute in relation to the code. Consequently, I did not have to make a decision.
The material received from the solicitors last week was such that it could not be used to prosecute in this jurisdiction. It contained a series of allegations--obviously serious ones--but there was no admissible evidence that could be used in court.
On habeas corpus, the point is entirely moot because the particular person has now left the jurisdiction.
Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli):
Will my hon. and learned Friend take it from me that I know nothing at all about the law and practice of extradition? Is it not true that, in criminal cases, the court usually decides whether the accused is fit to plead? Would an alternative course have been to allow General Pinochet to go to Spain and for a Spanish criminal court to decide whether he was fit to plead?
The Solicitor-General:
That was not my decision. Inasmuch as I had responsibility for the CPS, my decision was to ensure that it acted in accordance with the current code for Crown prosecutors. In other words: was there evidence for a prosecution in this jurisdiction?
My right hon. Friend asked whether it might have been possible to decide in court on Senator Pinochet's fitness to plead. When it is quite clear--and it became quite clear after the medical reports--that no prosecution can occur, there is no way that a judge in this jurisdiction would allow a trial to begin.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon):
I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for providing me with advance notice of his statement.
The case has been a long one. We welcome the review of the law of extradition announced by the Home Secretary. Will the Solicitor-General tell us whether there will be widespread consultations in respect of the review, and what the role of his Department will be?
We endorse the principle that those who commit abuses of human rights in one country should never assume safety elsewhere. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman elaborated on the following words from his statement:
The length and complexity of the case emphasise the need for an International Criminal Court to try human rights cases at a supranational level. The United Kingdom Government signed a statute of the International Court in Rome in July 1998, but they have failed to ratify the ICC treaty. Will the Solicitor-General provide us with a timetable for the publication of the draft legislation to ratify the ICC treaty? When will the Government ratify that treaty?
The Solicitor-General:
The Law Officers' Department has only a limited role in extradition, and that applies in respect of Irish extradition. We may be consulted on some of the detailed legal aspects. However, there are always lessons to be learned from such cases. One issue that I flagged up to the House last month was the role of the CPS as agent of a foreign state. In our jurisdiction, there is a clear division between the police's duty to investigate and our duty to prosecute. The CPS does not tell the police what to do.
We are committed to the International Criminal Court. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is very keen for legislation to get on the statute book in that regard. However, I can give no timetable for it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
As Chairman of the all-party Latin America group, may I ask whether Law Officers--doubtless together with Foreign and Commonwealth Office lawyers and Home Office lawyers--are considering the delicate balance of whether the operation of the law does not sometimes conflict with reconciliation? The truth is that this case has opened a Pandora's box in Chile, which was increasingly becoming a stable society. Questions should be asked as to whether legal actions on one continent will create grief in other continents. The answer is another matter, but is the question at least being reflected on?
The Solicitor-General:
Inasmuch as I can reply to my hon. Friend's questions, I simply say as a lawyer that law does not always lead to justice, nor does it always lead to reconciliation.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
May I reinforce the point just made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? Is not a general principle involved? When a democratic state decides, as part of a political accommodation, to put its past behind it, it is not for other countries to intervene with criminal proceedings. Is that not what was done in Spain with regard to the
The Solicitor-General:
In this case, we acted purely in accordance with our international obligations and with our obligations under the law on the statute book in this country. That may have had certain repercussions, but I cannot comment on that. We simply acted in accordance with the law. I certainly take the point that reconciliation can often be very valuable.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley):
Why have successive Attorneys-General in Britain refused to allow private or public prosecution on behalf of Pinochet's murdered British victims, William Beausire and Father Michael Woodward?
The Solicitor-General:
As I explained earlier, the fact is that the evidence was not there. There must be evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction under the code of the Crown prosecutors. However, I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said that human rights abuses occurred in Chile and that those who suffered and their relatives feel a sense of injury.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge):
Will the Solicitor-General confirm that, as a matter of law, if the President of China, the President of Zimbabwe or any other left-wing dictator with blood on his hands should come to this country and a warrant for extradition were received from another state, Her Majesty's Government would deal with that warrant in precisely the same way as the one for Senator Pinochet was dealt with?
Whether or not the MPS institutes a full investigation in this or any other case is a matter for it to decide.
Did the CPS instruct, or endeavour to instruct, the Metropolitan police to instigate such an investigation?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |