| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Voluntary Bill of Indictment
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Solicitor-General (1) what criteria govern applications by the Metropolitan police for applications to the High Court for a voluntary bill of indictment; who authorises such applications; and if he will make a statement; [140117]
27 Nov 2000 : Column: 387W
- (2) what requirement there is for the former accused in a case to be advised of an application being made to the High Court for a voluntary bill of indictment prior to its determination by the High Court; and if he will make a statement; [140099]
(3) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the applications for a voluntary bill of indictment made to the High Court following the acquittal of Detective Inspector John Redgrave on 17 May 1999; [140100]
(4) what criteria govern applications by the Crown Prosecution Service to the High Court for a voluntary bill of indictment; who authorises such applications; and if he will make a statement. [140116]
The Solicitor-General: In the vast majority of cases, bills of indictment charging indictable offences are preferred following committal for trial, notice of transfers or where the person charged has been sent for trial under the new provisions in relation to indictable only offences. Exceptionally, bills are preferred by the direction of the Court of Criminal Appeal or by the practice directions or with the consent of a judge of the High Court. The latter are frequently referred to as voluntary bills.
The procedure for obtaining a voluntary bill is set out in rules 7 to 11 of the Indictments (Procedure) Rules 1971. The Rules are exacting, in that the prosecuting authority applying for a voluntary bill must not only supply to the judge or the High Court the evidence which is to be relied on, but also the reasons why the application is being made.
The Rules have been subject to various practice directions, the latest of which took effect on 2 August 1999. These directions state that the preferment of a voluntary bill is an exceptional procedure. Consent should only be granted where good reason to depart from the normal procedures is clearly shown and only where the interests of justice, rather than consideration of administrative convenience, require it.
Until 1999, there was no express requirement for a prosecuting authority applying for consent to the preferment of a voluntary bill to give notice of the application to the prospective defendant or to give him copies of the relevant documents; nor was it expressly required that the prospective defendant have any opportunity to make a submission to the judge.
On 29 July 1999, the Attorney-General issued guidance to prosecuting authorities to change existing practices in light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which guarantees a fair hearing in the determination of any criminal charge). The guidance was issued with the approval of the Lord Chief Justice, and was incorporated into the new practice direction. It was agreed that the prosecution will give notice to the prospective defendant that an application for a grant of a voluntary bill will be made on a specific date. At the same time a copy of all the material that will form part of the application will be served on the prospective defendant. The notice will invite the prospective defendant to send any written submissions or an application for oral submissions to the prosecution within nine working days of notice being given by the prosecution. The prosecution may apply to the judge ex parte to dispense with the notice procedure where there are sufficient grounds for doing so.
27 Nov 2000 : Column: 388W
Applications by the Crown Prosecution Service for voluntary bills are governed by the 1971 Rules, the practice directions and the guidance issued by the Attorney-General. The previous practice directions given in 1991 stated that, in exceptional circumstances, the Judge may invite written submissions on behalf of any defendant affected if, in his judgment, the interests of justice so require.
Applications for voluntary bills by the CPS can only be signed by a senior Crown Prosecutor.
There are many reasons why a prosecuting authority might want to apply for a voluntary bill, such as when justices have refused to commit and it is believed they were wrong in law or where a defendant disrupts committal proceedings to the extent that they cannot be continued. Whatever the reasons, there must always be good reason to depart from the normal procedures and the interests of justice must require it.
On 17 May 1999, a Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, sitting at Bow Street Magistrates court, declined to commit Detective Inspector Redgrave for trial of aiding and abetting an offence contrary to section 4 of the Official Secrets Act 1989 and of conspiring with two others to pervert the course of public justice. The Magistrate was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to justify committal to the Crown court. Her judgment was carefully considered and, on the advice of leading Counsel, and having received further evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service applied for a voluntary bill in respect of the conspiracy charge only. It was believed that the evidence was sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and it was in the public interest to pursue the prosecution. The application was made mindful of the case of Brookes v. DPP (1994), which states that a preferment of a voluntary bill, where a charge has been dismissed at committal proceedings, requires that the decision of the magistrates should be treated with the greatest respect. The application made under the old procedure, which did not require notice to be given to Detective Inspector Redgrave, was refused on 8 June 1999.
BMA Guidelines
Mr. Kidney: To ask the Solicitor-General what action he plans to take on the British Medical Association's guidelines for the withholding and withdrawal of treatment. [134464]
Yvette Cooper: I have been asked to reply.
Ministers have not met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss their guidelines on withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment nor are there plans to do so. The aims of the document are to identify the range of clinical, ethical and legal factors which need to be considered in making decisions on withdrawing and withholding medical treatment and on potential procedures, including consulting the healthcare team and seeking a second opinion where appropriate.
We have no plans to take any action on these guidelines nor urge the British Medical Association to amend them. A revised second edition was published in October 2000.
27 Nov 2000 : Column: 389W
NORTHERN IRELAND
Police Overtime
Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was paid in overtime to members of the (a) RUC and (b) RUCR in each month of 2000 to the latest date for which figures are available. [138439]
Mr. Ingram: The table shows the amount of overtime paid to Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary Full-Time Reserve Officers during this year to date. It refers to overtime actually worked from December 1999 to September 2000.
| Month | RUC | RUC FTR |
|---|---|---|
| January | 3,624 | 1,468 |
| February | 2,762 | 955 |
| March | 2,152 | 541 |
| April | 2,509 | 751 |
| May | 1,922 | 518 |
| June | 2,819 | 942 |
| July | 2,482 | 745 |
| August | 6,740 | 2,308 |
| September | 3,300 | 975 |
| October | 2,626 | 742 |
Civil Servants (Relocation)
Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which relocation companies hold contracts with his Department for the relocation of civil servants; when the contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the length and value of each contract is. [137188]
Mr. Mandelson: Due to insufficient demand, the Northern Ireland Office does not hold contracts with relocation companies.
Special Advisers
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000, Official Report, column 2W, on Special Advisers, if he will list the destination and the total cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance, on each occasion when departmental or non-departmental Special Advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity. [135251]
Mr. Mandelson: During the period 31 March 1999 to the end of March 2000, a Special Adviser in this Department travelled on official business on one occasion to New York, Washington and Boston over a period of two days and two nights. This took place prior to my appointment on 11 October 1999. The total cost of the trip including travel, accommodation and subsistence amounted to £3,251.22. The cost of this visit was accounted for in expenditure on Ministers' travel overseas published by the Prime Minister on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 969W, which for 1999-2000 was £4.6 million compared to £7.9 million for the last year of the previous Administration.
27 Nov 2000 : Column: 390W
Unemployment Rates
Mr. Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the unemployment rates were for (a) Roman Catholics and (b) Protestants in each of the last 20 years. [140471]
Mr. Mandelson: Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |