---

22 Mar 2005 : Column 646W—continued

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Auditors

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment she has made of the implications for UK audit practices of European Court of Justice Case C-255/01, reference OJ C300 vol 47 of 4 December 2004, with particular reference to equivalence of professional qualifications for professional auditors dealing with European Community funds. [207105]

The Solicitor-General: The Department of Trade and Industry has taken up the issues raised by the case with the European Commission in the context of the new proposed 8th Company Law Directive on Statutory Audit of Annual Accounts and Consolidated Accounts. It hopes to resolve these issues, which could potentially affect a small number of auditors in the UK and from other EU member states, in this context.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 647W
 

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Solicitor-General how many complaints were received by her Department about decisions of the Crown Prosecution Service in 2004. [218708]

The Solicitor-General: The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers established a correspondence unit on 1November 2004 to handle the large amount of correspondence it receives.

It is not possible to ascertain with any degree of accuracy what proportion of the correspondence received relates to complaints about CPS decisions. Individual files would have to be checked for content which would incur disproportionate costs.

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Solicitor-General what records are kept of the proportion of cases submitted by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service that are deemed not to have a realistic prospect of successful prosecution. [218709]

The Solicitor-General: Since April 2004, the Crown Prosecution Service has recorded, for each case subject to a pre-charge decision in which the final decision was not to prosecute, the reason for that decision. Table 1 shows this information for the period April-December 2004, divided into evidential reasons and public interest reasons, together with the more exact reason allocated within each of these general categories.

Similarly, the Crown Prosecution Service records the reason for its decision to drop prosecutions after a defendant has been charged. This information is shown at Table 2, which covers the period January-December 2004. As well as cases in which either evidential or public interest reasons weighed against a prosecution, Table 2 also shows the number of cases in which a prosecution could not proceed, for example because the victim retracted or refused to give evidence, and a number of other reasons.

On both tables cases deemed not to have a realistic prospect of conviction are those shown under evidential reasons.
Table 1: Reasons for no prosecution 2004

	Number	Percentage
Evidential reasons
Key witness does not support case	1,545	1.5
Unreliable/lack of identification	5,424	5.3
Inadmissible evidence—Breach of PACE	462	0.5
Inadmissible evidence—other than Breach of PACE	704	0.7
Unreliable confession	256	0.2
Conflict of evidence	18,321	17.8
Essential medical evidence missing	617	0.6
Essential forensic evidence missing	1,442	1.4
Essential legal element missing	44,275	43.1
Unreliable witness or witnesses	7,345	7.2
Key victim does not support case	5,100	5.0
Total evidential reasons	85,491	83.3
Public interest reasons
Effect on victim's physical or mental health	425	0.4
Defendant elderly or in significant ill health	417	0.4
Loss or harm minor and single incident	2,098	2.0
Loss or harm put right	572	0.6
Long delay between offence/charge or trial	748	0.7
Very small or nominal penalty	2,263	2.2
Other indictment/sentence	1,748	1.7
Informer or other public interest immunity issues	368	0.4
Caution more suitable	6,793	6.6
Youth of offender	1,717	1.7
Total public interest reasons	17,149	16.7
Total reasons for no prosecution	102,640

 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 648W
 

Table 2: Reasons CPS dropped prosecution: 2004

	Number	Percentage
Evidential reasons
Key witness does not support case	1,331	0.6
Unreliable/lack of identification	7,208	3.4
Inadmissible evidence—Breach of PACE	405	0.2
Inadmissible evidence—other than Breach of PACE	1,267	0.6
Unreliable confession	154	0.1
Conflict of evidence	6,488	3.0
Essential medical evidence missing	527	0.2
Essential forensic evidence missing	1,444	0.7
Essential legal element missing	30,312	14.1
Unreliable witness or witnesses	3,695	1.7
Key victim does not support case	3,696	1.7
Total evidential reasons	56,527	26.3
Public interest reasons
Effect on victim's physical or mental health	481	0.2
Defendant elderly or in significant ill health	1,287	0.6
Loss or harm minor and single incident	576	0.3
Loss or harm put right	1,162	0.5
Long delay between offence/charge or trial	2,587	1.2
Very small or nominal penalty	3,114	1.4
Other indictment/sentence	9,046	4.2
Informer or other public interest immunity issues	1,852	0.9
Caution more suitable	5,286	2.5
Youth of offender	159	0.1
Total public interest reasons	25,550	11.9
Prosecution could not proceed
Administrative finalisation	50,502	23.5
File not received from police—adjournment refused	2,096	1.0
CPS not ready—adjournment refused	1,780	0.8
Offence taken into consideration	559	0.3
Victim refuses to give evidence or retracts	10,994	5.1
Other witness refuses to give evidence or retracts	1,370	0.6
Victim fails to attend unexpectedly	4,479	2.1
Other civilian witness fails to attend unexpectedly	1,719	0.8
Police witness fails to attend unexpectedly	1,389	0.6
Victim intimidation	28	0.0
Other civilian witness intimidation	41	0.0
Documents produced at court	9,629	4.5
Total prosecution could not proceed	84,586	39.3
Other reasons
Bind over acceptable	17,240	8.0
Other	31,231	14.5
Total other reasons	48,471	22.5
Total reasons for prosecution dropped	215,134

Freedom of Information

Llew Smith: To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the (a) documents and (b) other written material released to date by her Department under the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and what categories of information her Office has refused to release. [220637]

The Solicitor-General: To date my Department has released the following documents:
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 649W
 

(1) In relation to my noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General's advice on the legality of the use of force against Iraq:

(a) A letter from me to Graham Allen MP, 25 October 2002;

(b) A letter from the Prime Minister to Charles Kennedy MP, 14 March 2003;

(c) A letter dated 14 March 2003 from the Legal Secretary to the Law Officers to the Prime Minister's Private Secretary;

(d) A letter dated 15 March 2003 from the Prime Minister's Private Secretary to the Legal Secretary to the Law Officers;

(e) A letter dated 21 March 2003 from a judge at the Manchester Crown court;

(f) A letter dated 15 April 2003 sent on behalf of the Attorney-General to the Crown court judge;

(g) A letter dated 16 April 2003 from the Crown court judge;

(h) A letter dated 9 May 2003 from Lord Alexander QC;

(i) A letter dated 21 May 2003 in reply to Lord Alexander;

(j) A letter from the Attorney-General to David Hughes, 29 July 2003;

(k) A letter from me to Tam Dalyell MP, 27 August 2003;

(l) A letter from the Attorney-General to Graham Allen MP, 29 August 2003;

(m) A letter from the Attorney-General to Graham Allen MP, 3 November 2003;

(n) A letter from the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers to the PS/Foreign Secretary, 4 November 2003;

(o) A letter from Baroness Symons to Baroness Williams, 15 November 2004;

(p) A letter from the Attorney-General to Benedict Birnberg, 14 December 2004

(q) A statement by the Attorney-General of 25 February 2005 on the process leading up to the Attorney-General's written answer to Parliament on 17 March 2003;

(2) In relation to the Attorney's appearance before the Butler Review:

(a) An extract from a briefing note prepared for the Attorney-General's oral evidence session, 4 May 2004, on the resignation of Ms Elizabeth Wilmshurst from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office;

(b) An extract from a document entitled Key Extracts from Butler Report to Draw On (undated), on the same subject;

(c) A note submitted to the Review entitled Procedures for the Provision of Law Officers' Advice to the Government;

(3) A paper setting out my noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General's Ministerial Superintendence of the Army Prosecuting Authority;

(4) An extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Attorney-General with the Serious Fraud Office;

(5) A copy of the Attorney-General's submissions to the House of Lords in the case of A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, in which the House of Lords gave judgment on 16 December 2004 (UKHL [2004] 56).

My Office has not released information which we have judged exempt from disclosure under the Act, notably but not exclusively in relation to Sections 23 (information supplied by or related to bodies dealing with security matters), 27 (international relations), 35(formulation or development of Government policy, including the specific exemption at Section 33(1)(c) for Law Officers' advice) and 42 (legal professional privilege).
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 650W
 

---