Examination of Witnesses (Questions 217-219)
ROBERT WARDLE
27 JUNE 2007
Chairman: Mr Wardle, good morning and
welcome. I think we have to declare any interests we might have
around the table.
Jeremy Wright: I am a non-practising
member of the Bar.
Bob Neill: So am I.
Keith Vaz: So am I.
Q217 Chairman: Mr Wardle, we are
very grateful to you for coming along this morning. We are trying
to cast light upon the role of the Attorney General and, indeed,
look at the way that role might be changed in the future; so it
would be helpful, to begin with, if you could describe how in
practice the relationship between yourself and the Attorney works
in making decisions under the Prosecutorial Code.
Robert Wardle: Certainly Chairman.
I act under the Attorney's superintendence under the 1987 Criminal
Justice Act, much in the same way as the Director of Public Prosecutions
and the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office. Superintendence
is not defined, as far as I am aware, although there have been
some pronouncements of it. I think in practice it means that the
Attorney sets prosecution policy; I think he is there to deal
with resourcing issues, the size of the office and particularly
he has a right to be advised on cases of any real sensitivity
or difficulty. Likewise, I am in a position to be able to consult
him if I want advice, for example, on the public interest or possibly
even on evidential matters. The Serious Fraud Office is slightly
different, of course, to the other prosecutors because we do not
only prosecute, we also have the responsibility for investigation,
and that means the Attorney is involved, perhaps at a much earlier
stage than he might otherwise be if it was a traditional police
investigation, with the Crown Prosecution Service dealing with
the subsequent prosecution. In terms of my relationship, I will
brief the Attorney on any particular case, any particularly large
case, one where the public interest is obviously very important,
and I see him on regular basis to give him a run down on the 60
or 70 cases that we have in the office either in relation to prosecution
or investigation.
Q218 Chairman: That is a very important
point you made to us in that your role is different from that
of the DPP, because if the police were investigating the matter
the Attorney would have no role in deciding at that stage that
an investigation should not be continued.
Robert Wardle: That is right.
Q219 Chairman: I think that is a
point that may not have emerged in a lot of the public discussions
so far.
Robert Wardle: I am sure that
is right.
| 
