Examination of Witness (Questions 1-39)
Chair: Welcome, Mr Starmer.
We are glad to have you with us this morning to discuss mainly
joint enterprise, although there is one other question to which
I will refer in a moment when we have declared interests where
necessary.
Mr Buckland: I have been
a criminal barrister for 20 years prosecuting and defending. I
have not taken on any cases since the general election, but I
still sit as a recorder in the Crown court.
Chair: One of the later
questions, of which we gave you notice, relates to universal jurisdiction.
I happen to be the president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of
Israel.
Mr Llwyd: I have prosecuted
and defended cases both as a solicitor and barrister. I have not
done any prosecution work since April 2010.
Yasmin Qureshi: I have
also prosecuted and defended. I have not done any private work,
or any work to do with law, since February of last year. I also
used to work for the Crown Prosecution Service. I was there for
about 10 years and was a special case worker for a few years.
A member of my family is a higher court advocate currently in
the Crown Prosecution Service.
Chair: That done, I invite
Mr Llwyd to ask questions.
Q1 Mr Llwyd: Mr
Starmer, what general advice is given to prosecutors on the use
of joint enterprise? Are you aware of any particular advice issued
to the police?
Keir Starmer: There
is no particular advice we give to prosecutors. They have been
well used to using joint enterprise over the years, and we have
not given them any specific or different advice. I am not sure
what the position is in relation to the police, but I suspect
that most difficult joint enterprise cases would be charged by
us. Therefore, they would probably take their lead from us, but
I do not know whether they have issued specific advice. If they
have, I have not seen it.
Q2 Mr Llwyd: It
strikes me as rather odd that we cannot find any statistics on
the number of joint enterprise cases. Nowadays, there are statistics
to prove and disprove everything on earth. It seems to me rather
strange that there are no statistics to show how often it is being
used. In your experience, for which offences is joint enterprise
most commonly used?
Keir Starmer: It
is available for pretty well all offences, unless there is a statutory
reason it cannot be used. It is very commonly used for violence,
affray, burglary and those sorts of offences. They would be the
most common ones, but as a matter of law, it is available for
pretty much all offences.
To come back on the point about statistics,
I understand any concerns that the Committee may have on this.
I think the reason there are not specific statistics is that at
the moment the prosecutor can, and arguably should, charge an
individual both as a principal and as a secondary party in the
same indictment. There is an argument that as a matter of law
you have to do that. At the outset, the advantage for the prosecutor
is being able to charge in that broad and, if you like, alternative
way. The only way to collect statistics would be to try to work
out after the event, looking at jury verdicts, whether they had
in fact convicted on the basis of the principal offence or secondary
liability. I accept that can probably be done, but it is not something
we have done up to now. Therefore, unlike other offences where
we are able to put a flag in the system when an offence is charged
and then marry it up to a conviction, that is simply not possible
under our current arrangements. I think that is why you do not
have statistics, though I understand your concern about not having
them.
Q3 Mr Llwyd: There
is a belief that perhaps some police forces tend to overuse joint
enterprise as a tool to deal with gang crime, for example.
Keir Starmer: As
you may hear later this morning, there are concerns both ways.
For most of the bigger cases we would probably be involved in
the charging decision. These days there are not many big joint
enterprise cases that are charged by the police.
Q4 Mr Llwyd: This
is difficult for you to answer, is it not? Is the use of joint
enterprise by prosecutors on the increase? I understand if you
cannot answer.
Keir Starmer: I
am afraid I cannot answer that; it goes back to the statistics.
All I can say is that the advice and general approach has not
changed. Therefore, there is no reason for a difference in the
figures, but because I do not have the figures I cannot give you
a complete answer.
Q5 Mr Llwyd: In
effect, what you are saying, quite rightly, is that joint enterprise
very often is a belt-and-braces process where an individual might
be charged in the indictment in that capacity but also as part
of the joint enterprise.
Keir Starmer: "Joint
enterprise" is a very unhelpful term. Some academics do not
use it. For example, David Ormerod does not use that description.
He distinguishes, rightly I think, between liabilities as a principal
and liability as an accessory and limits his analysis to those
two doctrines. What is possible, and arguably ought to be done,
is that where the prosecution cannot clearly establish whether
someone is a principal or an accessory they charge essentially
both, and to that extent they do not have to nail their colours
to the mast until slightly later in the process.
Q6 Mr Llwyd: You
will be aware that recently there have been many appeal cases
about joint enterprise both as to conviction and sentence.
Keir Starmer: Yes.
Q7 Mr Llwyd: A
very important case is pending in the Supreme Court which I cannot
name for obvious reasons.
Keir Starmer: Yes;
that is our case.
Q8 Chair: We cannot
discuss it.
Mr Llwyd: No, indeed.
Keir Starmer: No,
but I am obviously well aware of it.
Q9 Jeremy Corbyn:
What evidence would you expect prosecutors to have when alleging
that a young defendant is part of a gang? This is a pejorative
connotation. How do you define "gang" in this situation?
Keir Starmer: For
the purposes of charging as a principal or accessory you would
not need to define "gang". Broadly speaking, you would
charge a member of any group, gang or otherwise, as a principal
if there was evidence that their conduct amounted to the full
criminal offence. You would charge as an accessory if their conduct
in itself did not amount to the full primary offence but in some
way assisted, aided or abetted, et cetera. That would be the distinction.
In an ordinary case, where what is contemplated happens, it does
not make much difference because the charge will have within it
both the principal and accessory liability. It will be open to
us to charge an individual as a principal and, if we fail on that,
to succeed in convicting as an accessory. There are no special
rules here for gangs, but for groups that is the distinction we
would be making.
Q10 Jeremy Corbyn:
You will be aware that prosecutors have been accused of taking
a dragnet approach to charging young people. I know it is difficult
to collect statistics on it, but how do you counter the argument
that it is just a simplistic way of pulling in a very large number
of young people, often with quite limited evidence?
Keir Starmer: The
general rules of principal and secondary liability remain the
same. Whatever concerns are expressed, if the charge is improperly
brought, it will fail either at the close of the prosecution or
the end of the case. That has not been happening in large numbers,
so I conclude from it that whatever charges are being brought
are proper charges; otherwise, the court would halt the case at
the end of the prosecution case or the conviction would not follow.
Q11 Jeremy Corbyn:
Do the CPS take any account of the way in which public concerns
over gangs are expressed, perhaps often in ignorance of the reality
of young people's lives and the easy accusation that they are
members of a gang? From my observations, there seems to be an
increase in the number of prosecutions of gang-related offences
when often evidence of gang membership is very flimsy indeed.
Keir Starmer: The
answer is no because we do not approach it by asking whether it
is a gang case. We approach it by asking, "What is the primary
offence here?" In relation to all the individuals we are
considering, is there evidence that they were party to the main
offence itself? If not, is there evidence that they aided, abetted,
encouraged, et cetera? If the answer to both questions is no then
any reference to gangs is irrelevant. They are the two legal questions.
There is then the question of whether it is in the public interest
to prosecute.
Q12 Chair: What
was the final question to which you referred?
Keir Starmer: The
first question is, "Is there enough evidence against them
as principals? Is there enough evidence against them as accessories?"
If the answer to those two questions is no, there is nothing further
to ask. If the answer is yes, the question is whether it is in
the public interest to pursue the case. It rather depends on the
circumstances, but if it is a serious assault or murder, the public
interest would usually require a prosecution to be brought. But
there is no special rule for gangs here. These are ordinary principles
of liability as principals or accessories. They do not change;
we do not approach them any differently, nor could we, because
they are legal principles.
Q13 Ben Gummer:
You discussed earlier the academic distinctions that have been
drawn about how you might define joint enterprise or otherwise.
How does that permeate into your decision making at CPS and decisions
that courts are making? There does not seem to be a close definition
with which you are happy.
Keir Starmer: I
think the rival positions are these. Everybody accepts that you
should calibrate culpability. The question is at what stage in
the process you do it. Using the law as it is now, the calibration
exercise usually happens towards the end of the trial, probably
at the sentencing stage. Those who argue that that is too broad
or generous to the prosecution would rather have culpability calibrated
earlier in the process and thus have more specific offences for
the prosecutor to choose specifically what it is they allege against
the particular individual. They are the two rival positions. Our
approach is simply to apply the law as it is now, but I accept
that to some extent that allows us at the outset to prosecute
someone both as a principal and, in the alternative, as an accessory.
Q14 Ben Gummer:
Is there not another calibration going on concerning those defendants
who might act as witnesses against their co-principals?
Keir Starmer: In
the sense that they are not prosecuted because we want them as
witnesses?
Q15 Ben Gummer:
Yes; and they might be dealt with more leniently if they act as
witnesses against their co-principals.
Keir Starmer: This
is a very difficult question to answer. In each case, one will
have to consider what powers are available to prosecute. If there
is evidence that someone may have participated in the offence
and there is any kind of immunity from prosecutorial action, broadly
speaking, that is now codified in the law. There would have to
be agreement as to how we would use anybody in that situation,
which is a different area of the law.
Q16 Ben Gummer:
Let me turn it on its head.
Keir Starmer: In
other words, you are asking whether, if you have a main participant
whom you think can give evidence against the other members of
the group, in certain circumstances, you would not prosecute that
individual so that you can secure them as a witness. The answer
is that that is legally available to us but it is now regulated
by statute. It happens but only in the circumstances permitted
by the statute. I am afraid that, without considerable research,
I am not able to tell you, if at all, the extent to which those
agreements are used in joint enterprise cases. To some extent
they are bound to be used in cases where there is more than one
offender.
Q17 Ben Gummer:
We will move on to this later, but I know there is a public perception
that these agreements happen and that damages confidence in the
process.
Keir Starmer: That
was why it became regulated.
Q18 Ben Gummer:
Do you think that is having a beneficial impact on public perception?
Keir Starmer: It
is difficult to measure. The fact that there is a statutory regime
in which the circumstances in which agreements can be made are
clear, with internal guidance about the level of authority, ought
to give a degree of confidence that these agreements are being
made in accordance with the law. On occasion, we have been asked
for the figures showing the number of cases where agreements have
been reached with witnesses who have participated in crime. They
were broken down in an answer to a parliamentary question tabled
just before the summer to drive at that question of how often
they are being used and how that affects public confidence, but,
as I understand it, the idea of putting this on a statutory footing
is that it makes clear when such agreements can be struck and
where the level of authority lies. My view is that that does give
a greater degree of confidence than to leave it to arrangements
which have developed over time but are not regulated by statute.
Q19 Ben Gummer:
That is helpful. On the other side, do you think that at any time
the doctrine of joint enterprise acts to deters witnesses?
Keir Starmer: Do
you mean pure witnesses or those who have participated?
Q20 Chair: Let
us say I am around when the attack happens. I have been out drinking
with the same group all evening, but I have not been charged or
brought into a joint enterprise. Do I go to the police and say,
"I was there and I have a pretty good idea of what happened,
but of course I held back when the trouble really started",
or do I just stay out of the way and avoid the risk of a joint
enterprise prosecution being brought against me, in case I have
helped to plan it?
Keir Starmer: I
see the argument. The honest truth is that I do not know. I can
see an argument can be made that some people may be reluctant
to come forward lest they have unknowingly crossed the line into
criminality.
Ben Gummer: I was groping
for a situation, but Sir Alan shows more familiarity with it.
Q21 Chair: I am
not sure it is a very convincing example.
Keir Starmer: It
is one of those questions that is very difficult to answer. Did
the witness not come forward for the following reason? The fact
they did not come forward means you are probably unlikely to find
out. I accept the point that, if the net is cast wide on joint
enterprise, broadly speaking, people may have crossed the line
in circumstances where they did not appreciate they had. I accept
that concern, but it is pretty difficult to answer the question.
Q22 Mr Buckland:
To develop that, the obvious and proper point we need to explore
is whether or not there is a wider public policy interest in maintaining
a law of joint enterprise to send a message to people who get
involved in enterprises, whether they be burglaries in which people
act as lookouts or getaway facilitators or other types of crime
where perhaps people are holding back who potentially can assist
and prevent an assault. A message is being sent out that just
because you have a minor role does not mean you should not take
your fair share of responsibility, but your degree of involvement
will be reflected in sentence. Is there not a wider public policy
interest in that respect?
Keir Starmer: I
do understand that. There is also the very practical advantage,
which needs to be considered if options are to be examined by
the Committee, that in a fairly complicated set of circumstances,
it is very difficult at the outset necessarily to pinpoint the
precise acts of each individual when a number of people are acting
as a group. If you require that to be done, as it were, up front
and before the prosecution starts, you run the risk of an overly
technical prosecution which may fail to prove the particular act,
but during the trial it is pretty clear that the individual, though
not guilty of the acts specified, is guilty of other acts. These
things may be catered for. I do not think anybody says there is
no alternative model, but there are advantages and disadvantages
in the current approach and any changed approach. My greater concern
would be genuinely those cases where you have a reasonably large
number of people and it is very difficult at the outset to say
that is precisely what is alleged and nothing else and everything
else is clear. That is quite difficult in those cases.
Q23 Mr Buckland:
One can imagine trying to settle an indictment which potentially
could become impossibly overloaded, confusing and unhelpful to
a jury, or anybody, as part of a case.
Keir Starmer: I
agree with that. You have to add to that the prospect that the
individual may give evidence to say he foresaw x but not
y, and that may change the position. The current approach
allows all of that to be accommodated within the trial and the
sentencer then to sentence according to culpability if there is
a conviction. There is that advantage in the current approach.
Q24 Mr Buckland:
I suppose the one exception would be murder and the mandatory
life sentence. There are tariff issues as well, are there not?
Keir Starmer: The
current approach, broadly speaking, calibrates culpability at
the end of the exercise through sentence. Most of the time that
ought to work reasonably well. It obviously does not work well
with fixed sentences, murder being the obvious one. There is the
tariff within the life sentence, but for everything else you can
calibrate much more carefully according to the individual. I can
see the disadvantages of the current approach, one of which is
that, if someone has played a very minor part in a very serious
offence but is none the less convicted, they are convicted of
that very serious offence. I think some juries may feel that it
simply does not feel fair to convict someone for playing a very
small part in a very serious offence, so it may be slightly counterproductive.
I do not think this is an area where the arguments are all one
way.
Q25 Mr Buckland:
You will be aware that the Law Commission published its report
"Participating in Crime" back in 2007 at about the same
time the Serious Crime Act was enacted which changed the law in
some measure with regard to some inchoate offences. I believe
sections 44 to 46 changed the law.
Keir Starmer: Yes.
Q26 Mr Buckland:
First, how effective do you think those provisions have been?
Are they used often?
Keir Starmer: They
are not used very often. Because it is a specific offence, we
are able to give some statistics. I have them somewhere and will
happily provide them to the Committee. What I can say in broad
terms is that they have not been used very often.
Q27 Mr Buckland:
Second, do you think that perhaps it would have been good then,
or now, to have widened the reform to put the law of joint enterprise,
common purpose, primary liability, principal liability—whatever
you want to call it—on a statutory footing?
Keir Starmer: I
can see the argument that what the Law Commission was really driving
at was a narrowing of the liability of principals but a broadening
of the circumstances in which there could be liability of secondary
parties. Part 2 of their analysis has been put, broadly speaking,
on a statutory footing, but part 1 has been left unimplemented
or not acted upon. I am neutral as to whether that should be done.
There are advantages and disadvantages, and it may depend on how
it is done. If it is proposed that the law is narrowed to the
point where the prosecution have to particularise the very act
up front, you run a risk. You can see the fairness argument on
both sides. If you are a victim of crime and someone appears to
be acquitted because technically they did not do the act that
the prosecution sought to prove but it is pretty clear they were
involved, there will be a perceived injustice on the part of the
victim. On the other hand, I can see the argument that, if you
are a defendant, it is only fair that you know in as great a detail
as possible precisely what is alleged against you at the earliest
possible moment and you are judged on that. I can see the perceived
injustice. My only concern about putting part 1 of the Law
Commission's proposals on a statutory footing is that, if it makes
the law overly technical, you may run the risk of injustice. I
am sure that if Parliament decides that is what needs to be done
it is possible to come up with a scheme, but it really is not
straightforward.
Q28 Yasmin Qureshi:
Is it right that normally when people are considering whether
or not there is a joint enterprise, if there is evidence to suggest
that the person on the periphery of the group was in some way
aiding, assisting, counselling, procuring, or even lending encouragement,
according to case law they can be properly convicted anyway? Therefore,
the law as it currently stands is not completely at a tangent,
is it?
Keir Starmer: No.
There are two big issues here. The first is whether you should
be convicted of a serious offence even if you have participated
only in some very small way by encouraging, aiding, abetting,
et cetera. The second big issue is what happens when what everybody
contemplates does not happen and somebody does something that
nobody really expected them to do. The classic example is the
gang that goes out for a fight, one or more members pull out a
knife and there is a murder. There, the current approach allows
an individual who may have started out as a principal, as it were,
to drop into a secondary role and none the less be convicted as
a secondary party, depending on the circumstances. Broadly speaking,
that works certainly from the point of view of prosecution. That
is why there needs to be some caution if there is any amendment
to it, but one accepts that this is complicated and one can understand
the concerns on either side.
Q29 Chair: Would
you regard it as a serious limitation on your ability successfully
to prosecute culpable people of very serious crimes if you did
not have the joint enterprise routes to take?
Keir Starmer: Yes,
I think it would be.
Chair: We will turn now
to another issue. I ask Mr Corbyn to talk about private arrest
warrants for offences of universal jurisdiction.
Q30 Jeremy Corbyn:
Thank you for coming today. You will be aware of the debates about
universal jurisdiction and the way in which the law was changed
to remove the opportunity for a private arrest warrant to be sought
at the magistrates court. We had before us the Attorney-General,
who assured us that the Director of Public Prosecutions would
issue guidelines on the use of private prosecution for offences
that qualified for universal jurisdiction. What will these guidelines
say, and for whom are they written?
Keir Starmer: The
guidelines are now in draft and I intend to make them public so
that everybody can see them. They are written for our prosecutors
to apply, but they are to be made available to the public so that
they can understand the basis on which we seek to make decisions.
They are in draft form at the moment. We have a panel of interested
parties and groups with which we liaise on questions of universal
jurisdiction, including Amnesty, Redress and so on. I think we
have a meeting with them in mid-November. The guidelines are in
draft until we have had a chance to walk through them with that
group and any other interested party.
The guidelines in draft reflect the evidence that
I gave to the Bill Committee indicating that consent for an arrest
warrant would be given, broadly speaking, only if the code test
was satisfied, namely, that there was a realistic prospect of
a conviction based on the evidence, with a caveat for urgent cases.
That is the approach I said I would take, and that is in the draft
guidelines. They will be in draft for a few weeks more, but once
they are finalised they will be made public.
Q31 Jeremy Corbyn:
What opportunities do you envisage for members of the public to
approach you or your office to mount an arrest warrant, for example,
in a case where somebody living here in a diaspora community becomes
aware of someone against whom there is prima facie evidence of
war crimes, or crimes against humanity, in their own country,
perhaps arriving at very short notice or unexpectedly in this
country where it could be possible to arrest them? Would you be
prepared to receive representations from a private citizen under
those conditions?
Keir Starmer: Yes,
and we have. What we encourage, which is why we have a dialogue
with the most interested groups, is that they come to us much
earlier because, whatever your perspective, working at 24 or 48
hours' notice is not ideal, for very obvious reasons. We encourage
them to come early and, if possible, to allow the police to do
an investigation, as long as it is a proper one to carry out,
because it is far better for the police to do it.
Q32 Jeremy Corbyn:
That was to be my next question. Would you automatically pass
a case over to the police, or would you take a marginal decision
in a particular case to grant the arrest warrant but that is it,
and not pass it over to the police to investigate to collect the
relevant evidence?
Keir Starmer: It
depends. Our preference is to pass it to the police because in
a proper case they have coercive powers: they can search and seize,
and they can interview. A private individual cannot. There is
a huge advantage, if there is a proper case, if it is investigated
by the police in terms of evidence that is admissible in court.
But some individuals come to us either too late in the day or
do not want the police to investigate, because they believe they
have already assembled enough evidence and ask us to assess it
there and then. They tend to be the ones that come late in the
day. In those cases, we have assessed it as best we can in the
time available. But we have created a dialogue. In one example
a few weeks ago, for about 48 hours or so we were working very
closely with the private individuals in constant dialogue about
the case.
Q33 Jeremy Corbyn:
Both the last Government and current one have said in the House
in terms that foreign policy considerations should have a bearing
upon the potential, or otherwise, for an arrest warrant to be
issued. That was one of the reasons they gave for removing the
direct access of the private citizen to Westminster magistrates
court in this case. Do you have any foreign policy considerations,
or do you take a strictly legal view of prima facie evidence of
war crimes or crimes against humanity?
Keir Starmer: Under
the code we are bound to ask whether there is sufficient evidence
and then to go on to consider the public interest. Within the
public interest there are a wide number of factors. I think it
is inevitable that at the stage the Attorney-General would come
to give consent to a prosecution in these cases—he must
consent in all of them—he would want to take into account
any relevant policy considerations in terms of international relations.
That creates a situation where I am being asked to consent to
an arrest warrant at a stage very shortly before one is granted,
if it is. The Attorney-General will then be asked whether he consents
to the prosecution. As I told the Bill Committee, in those circumstances
I would in most, if not all, cases want to consult the Attorney-General
about the approach he might take to consent, because I do not
think it is to anybody's benefit for an arrest warrant to be issued
followed promptly by a refusal by the Attorney-General to consent.
Q34 Jeremy Corbyn:
Do you think it is healthy that you as the DPP would consider
there to be appropriate evidence against an individual from another
jurisdiction against whom there is evidence and you then consult
someone who is a politically appointed Minister who may well have
many other considerations to bear in mind other than the strictly
legal ones?
Keir Starmer: I
think it is an inevitable consequence of our arrangements.
Q35 Jeremy Corbyn:
Are you comfortable with that?
Keir Starmer: So
far, yes. We have had only one case since the new arrangements
were put in place. I have always been neutral on this. I have
never put forward the view that the DPP ought to have to consent
to an application for an arrest warrant or otherwise, but, having
been given the powers, all I can do is exercise them in the way
I indicated I would. First, we will be publishing open guidelines
so that everybody knows the approach we are going to take; second,
we will require sufficient evidence before we consent to a warrant;
and, third, I think it is inevitable under the current arrangements
that I will consult the Attorney-General.
Q36 Chair: On
that point, it is perhaps worth saying that in this Committee
previously, when the discussion about the relationship between
the DPP and the Attorney-General took place, it was strongly of
the view that it was the Attorney-General who had to take political
responsibility for wider considerations rather than the DPP.
Keir Starmer: Yes.
Q37 Chair: You
would not be comfortable if it was your job to bring in such considerations
of foreign policy?
Keir Starmer: No,
and it would not be. On one view, I could proceed to accede to
an arrest warrant without consulting the Attorney-General, and
I am not bound by what he says. That is the current arrangement
which applies in many very sensitive cases day in, day out when
we have a lot of communications. It is not something that applies
only to universal jurisdiction. We are well aware of our functions
and the fact I consult but I am not bound; so is the Attorney-General.
My view is that there may be circumstances, but I cannot presently
envisage them, in which it would be sensible for me on Monday
to consent to an arrest warrant and on Tuesday for the AttorneyGeneral
to say he is not prepared to prosecute because he does not see
that it will achieve very much.
Q38 Jeremy Corbyn:
We were assured on the change that handing it over to the DPP
to decide on an arrest warrant was, in part, trying to remove
it from the political arena, but the procedure you have outlined
seems to me to throw it straight back into that arena. Without
public access, it is solely the view of the Attorney-General presumably
on some kind of foreign policy consideration.
Keir Starmer: I
think it will depend on a case-by-case basis. The decision is
mine and mine alone. In the recent case, I made it absolutely
clear that it was my decision and responsibility. I consulted
the Attorney-General, not least because, in that particular case,
an unusual form of immunity arose. The wider considerations are
for the Attorney-General and it may well be that he is not in
a position to consider those wider issues at the point I consult
him. These things tend to happen in very quick time. To that extent,
it is insulated but, given that for all these offences, the Attorney-General
must consent, the decision whether there is a prosecution is his,
not mine. This was the reason we went for the code test.
With a private prosecutor, there are no coercive
powers, so whatever you have to put before the magistrate for
the arrest warrant is probably your case to prosecute, because
you cannot search, interview, seize or add to your evidence. Obviously,
this is a general proposition. Your file of evidence is the basis
upon which you have to decide whether to issue an arrest warrant,
and it is probably the basis on which you will have to decide
whether to prosecute, unlike every other case where the police
arrest and there is an opportunity to add to the evidence. That
was why I took the view that you had to be pretty well satisfied
that a prosecution would follow before you decided to arrest an
individual, because that is the practical reality. If they are
arrested and are in custody, they will be brought before the court
the same day or next day. We are talking about very short periods
of time, and the Attorney-General's consent will come very quickly
in the process. Those are the arrangements.
Q39 Jeremy Corbyn:
Will the draft procedures that you are drawing up now after consultation
be open for public comment by this Committee or the public in
general?
Keir Starmer: The
way we have approached it is to work with our panel of interested
parties, but I have no issue about sharing them with the Committee
or anyone else who wants to comment on them. We have what we call
a community involvement panel which is comprised basically of
individuals or organisations who have been particularly concerned
about their ability to bring private prosecutions. We meet them
every four or six months. They seem to us to be the obvious group
with which to walk through the guidelines, but that is not a hard
and fast rule and I have no issue with anybody else commenting
on them.
Chair: Thank you very
much. I think we would now like to move on to more aspects of
the subject we were discussing earlier. We are very grateful to
you, Mr Starmer, for the evidence you have given us this morning.
| 
