Skip to content

HTTPS clone URL

Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with HTTPS or Subversion.

Download ZIP
Browse files

updated readme, hacking tags

  • Loading branch information...
commit d9b4539fcb4eb0e99a0459a8540b9cd50758953d 1 parent 3ba0123
Robert Brook authored
Showing with 313 additions and 924 deletions.
  1. +13 −1 README
  2. +300 −923 working/11102502.htm
View
14 README
@@ -1,6 +1,18 @@
+Q: Why is it called SCOAP rather than SCOEP?
+
+A: I slipped.
+
+Process:
+
+ - Clipped out extraneous markup
+
+ - changing bold tags to strong tags
+
+ - italics to emphasis.
+
Justice Committee - Eleventh Report
Joint Enterprise
-http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmjust/1597/159702.htm
+Index: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmjust/1597/159702.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmjust/1597/11102502.htm
View
1,223 working/11102502.htm
@@ -1,884 +1,274 @@
-<HTML>
-<HEAD><link rel="shortcut icon" type="image/x-icon" href="/favicon.ico" /><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" href="/styles/global.css"><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="/styles/global_print.css">
-<meta name="Title" content="House of Commons - Justice Committee - Minutes of Evidence">
-<meta name="Subject" content="Select Committee Report">
-<meta name="Place" content="House of Commons, Westminster">
-<meta name="Publisher" content="The Stationery Office Ltd">
-<meta name="Author" content="The Committee Office, House of Commons">
-<meta name="OtherAgent" content="The Stationery Office Ltd">
-<meta name="Date" content="11 January 2012">
-<meta name="ObjectType" content="Minutes of Evidence">
-<meta name="Identifier" content="11102502.txt">
-<meta name="Form" content="text/html">
-<meta name="Source" content="House of Commons [1597]">
-<meta name="ISBN" content="504058">
-<meta name="Language" content="English">
-<meta name="Coverage" content="25 October 2011">
-<TITLE>House of Commons - Justice Committee - Minutes of Evidence</TITLE>
-</HEAD>
-<BODY bgcolor="#ffffff"><SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript1.1" type="text/javascript">
- var gDomain="www.stats.tso.co.uk";
- var gDcsId="dcs8a1rrculeroaqmbjq87oq1_4s7l";
- var gFpcDom=".parliament.uk";
- var gFpc="WT_FPC";
- var gConvert=true;
- if ((typeof(gConvert)!="undefined")&&gConvert&&(document.cookie.indexOf(gFpc+"=")==-1)&&(document.cookie.indexOf("WTLOPTOUT=")==-1)){
- document.write("<SCR"+"IPT TYPE='text/javascript' SRC='"+"http"+(window.location.protocol.indexOf('https:')==0?'s':'')+"://"+gDomain+"/"+gDcsId+"/wtid.js"+"'><\/SCR"+"IPT>");
-}
- </SCRIPT>
- <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript1.1" SRC="/styles/webtrends.js"></SCRIPT>
- <NOSCRIPT>
- <IMG ALT="" BORDER="0" NAME="DCSIMG" WIDTH="1" HEIGHT="1" SRC="http://www.stats.tso.co.uk/dcs8a1rrculeroaqmbjq87oq1_4s7l/njs.gif?dcsuri=/nojavascript&amp;WT.js=No">
- </NOSCRIPT>
-
-<div id="contentHolder">
-<div id="top_nav">
- <ul>
- <li class="first"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/accessibility/">Accessibility</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/email-alerts/">Email alerts</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/rss-feeds/">RSS feeds</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/contact-us/">Contact us</a></li>
- </ul>
-</div>
-<div id="banner">
- <div id="banner_top">
- <div id="banner_img">
- <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/"><img src="/server-side/images/parliament_logo.gif" alt="" width="280" height="45" border="0" /></a>
- </div>
-
- <form id="search-form" action="http://www.parliament.uk/search/results" method="get">
- <div id="banner_search">
- <input id="q" type="text" name="q" />
- <input id="button" type="submit" value="Search" />
- </div>
- </form>
-
-</div>
-<div id="main_nav">
- <ul>
- <li class="first"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/">Home</a></li>
- <li class="over"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/">Parliamentary business</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/">MPs, Lords & offices</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/">About Parliament</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/">Get involved</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/visiting/">Visiting</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/education/">Education</a></li>
- </ul>
-</div>
- <div id="secondary_nav">
- <ul>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/">House of Commons</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/">House of Lords</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/">What's on</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/bills-and-legislation/">Bills & legislation</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/">Committees</a></li>
- <li class="over"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/">Publications & records</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Home.aspx">Parliament TV</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/">News</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/topics/topical-issues.htm">Topics</a></li>
- </ul>
- </div>
-</div>
-
-
-
-<div class="breadcrumb">You are here: <span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/">Parliament home page</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/">Parliamentary business</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/">Publications and Records</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/committees/">Committee Publications</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/committees/select-committee-publications/">All Select Committee Publications</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/committees/select-committee-publications/commons-select/">Commons Select Committees</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/publications/">Justice</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement">Justice</span></div>
-<div id="maincontent">
-<TABLE border=0 width="90%">
-<TR valign=top>
-<TD VALIGN=TOP align=left>
-<B>Joint Enterprise - Justice Committee <A href="11102501.htm">Contents</A></B>
-<BR><BR></TD>
-<TD VALIGN=TOP align=right></TD></TR></TABLE>
-<TABLE border=0 width="90%">
-<TR><TD VALIGN=TOP><HR size=3></TD></TR>
-<TR><TD VALIGN=TOP><TABLE border=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%">
-<TR><TD VALIGN=TOP>
-<FONT size=+1><B> Examination of Witness (Questions 1-39)
+<!doctype html>
+<html>
+<head>
+ <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" href="default.css">
+ <link rel="stylesheet" href="http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/Core/Modernist" type="text/css">
+ <title>House of Commons - Justice Committee - Minutes of Evidence</title>
+</head>
+<body>
+
+
+<div id="contentHolder">
+ <div id="top_nav">
+ <ul>
+ <li class="first"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/accessibility/">Accessibility</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/email-alerts/">Email alerts</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/rss-feeds/">RSS feeds</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/contact-us/">Contact us</a></li>
+ </ul>
+ </div>
+ <div id="banner">
+ <div id="banner_top">
+ <div id="banner_img">
+ <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/">parliament.uk</a>
+
+ </div>
+ <form id="search-form" action="http://www.parliament.uk/search/results" method="get">
+ <div id="banner_search">
+ <input id="q" type="text" name="q" />
+ <input id="button" type="submit" value="Search" />
+ </div>
+ </form>
+ </div>
+ <div id="main_nav">
+ <ul>
+ <li class="first"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/">Home</a></li>
+ <li class="over"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/">Parliamentary business</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/">MPs, Lords & offices</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/">About Parliament</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/">Get involved</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/visiting/">Visiting</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/education/">Education</a></li>
+ </ul>
+ </div>
+ <div id="secondary_nav">
+ <ul>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/">House of Commons</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/">House of Lords</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/">What's on</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/bills-and-legislation/">Bills & legislation</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/">Committees</a></li>
+ <li class="over"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/">Publications & records</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Home.aspx">Parliament TV</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/">News</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/topics/topical-issues.htm">Topics</a></li>
+ </ul>
+ </div>
+ </div>
+ <div class="breadcrumb">
+ You are here: <span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/">Parliament home page</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/">Parliamentary business</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/">Publications and Records</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/committees/">Committee Publications</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/committees/select-committee-publications/">All Select Committee Publications</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/committees/select-committee-publications/commons-select/">Commons Select Committees</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/publications/">Justice</a></span><span class="breadcrumbElement"> &gt; </span><span class="breadcrumbElement">Justice</span>
+ </div>
+ <div id="maincontent">
+ <table border="0" width="90%">
+ <tr valign="top">
+ <td valign="TOP" align="left"> <strong>Joint Enterprise - Justice Committee <a href="11102501.htm">Contents</a></strong> <br><br></td>
+ <td valign="TOP" align="right"></td>
+ </tr>
+ </table>
+ <table border="0" width="90%">
+ <tr>
+ <td valign="TOP">
+ <hr size="3"></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td valign="TOP">
+ <table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
+ <tr>
+ <td valign="TOP"> <font size="+1"><strong> Examination of Witness (Questions 1-39) </strong></font><br><br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Chair:</strong> 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Mr Buckland:</strong> 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Chair:</strong> 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Mr Llwyd:</strong> I have prosecuted and defended cases both as a solicitor and barrister. I have not done any prosecution work since April 2010.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Yasmin Qureshi:</strong> 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Chair:</strong> That done, I invite Mr Llwyd to ask questions.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q1 <strong>Mr Llwyd:</strong></strong> 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q2 <strong>Mr Llwyd:</strong></strong> 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.
+ <p>
+ &nbsp;&nbsp;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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q3 <strong>Mr Llwyd:</strong></strong> There is a belief that perhaps some police forces tend to overuse joint enterprise as a tool to deal with gang crime, for example.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q4 <strong>Mr Llwyd:</strong></strong> 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.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q5 <strong>Mr Llwyd:</strong></strong> 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.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: &quot;Joint enterprise&quot; 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q6 <strong>Mr Llwyd:</strong></strong> You will be aware that recently there have been many appeal cases about joint enterprise both as to conviction and sentence.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: Yes. <br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q7 <strong>Mr Llwyd:</strong></strong> A very important case is pending in the Supreme Court which I cannot name for obvious reasons.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: Yes; that is our case.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q8 <strong>Chair:</strong></strong> We cannot discuss it.
+ <p>
+ <strong>Mr Llwyd:</strong> No, indeed.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: No, but I am obviously well aware of it.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q9 <strong>Jeremy Corbyn:</strong></strong> 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 &quot;gang&quot; in this situation?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: For the purposes of charging as a principal or accessory you would not need to define &quot;gang&quot;. 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q10 <strong>Jeremy Corbyn:</strong></strong> 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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. <br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q11 <strong>Jeremy Corbyn:</strong></strong> 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.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: The answer is no because we do not approach it by asking whether it is a gang case. We approach it by asking, &quot;What is the primary offence here?&quot; 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q12 <strong>Chair:</strong></strong> What was the final question to which you referred?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: The first question is, &quot;Is there enough evidence against them as principals? Is there enough evidence against them as accessories?&quot; 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q13 <strong>Ben Gummer:</strong></strong> 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.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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. <br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q14 <strong>Ben Gummer:</strong></strong> Is there not another calibration going on concerning those defendants who might act as witnesses against their co-principals?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: In the sense that they are not prosecuted because we want them as witnesses?<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q15 <strong>Ben Gummer:</strong></strong> Yes; and they might be dealt with more leniently if they act as witnesses against their co-principals.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q16 <strong>Ben Gummer:</strong></strong> Let me turn it on its head.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q17 <strong>Ben Gummer:</strong></strong> 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.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: That was why it became regulated.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q18 <strong>Ben Gummer:</strong></strong> Do you think that is having a beneficial impact on public perception?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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. <br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q19 <strong>Ben Gummer:</strong></strong> That is helpful. On the other side, do you think that at any time the doctrine of joint enterprise acts to deters witnesses?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: Do you mean pure witnesses or those who have participated?<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q20 <strong>Chair:</strong></strong> 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, &quot;I was there and I have a pretty good idea of what happened, but of course I held back when the trouble really started&quot;, 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.
+ <p>
+ <strong>Ben Gummer:</strong> I was groping for a situation, but Sir Alan shows more familiarity with it. <br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q21 <strong>Chair:</strong></strong> I am not sure it is a very convincing example.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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. <br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q22 <strong>Mr Buckland:</strong></strong> 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q23 <strong>Mr Buckland:</strong></strong> 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.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: I agree with that. You have to add to that the prospect that the individual may give evidence to say he foresaw <em>x</em> but not <em>y</em>, 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. <br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q24 <strong>Mr Buckland:</strong></strong> I suppose the one exception would be murder and the mandatory life sentence. There are tariff issues as well, are there not?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q25 <strong>Mr Buckland:</strong></strong> You will be aware that the Law Commission published its report &quot;Participating in Crime&quot; 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.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: Yes. <br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q26 <strong>Mr Buckland:</strong></strong> First, how effective do you think those provisions have been? Are they used often?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q27 <strong>Mr Buckland:</strong></strong> 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&#151;whatever you want to call it&#151;on a statutory footing?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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&nbsp;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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q28 <strong>Yasmin Qureshi:</strong></strong> 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q29 <strong>Chair:</strong></strong> 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: Yes, I think it would be.
+ <p>
+ <strong>Chair:</strong> We will turn now to another issue. I ask Mr&nbsp;Corbyn to talk about private arrest warrants for offences of universal jurisdiction.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q30 <strong>Jeremy Corbyn:</strong></strong> 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.
+ <p>
+ 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q31 <strong>Jeremy Corbyn:</strong></strong> 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q32 <strong>Jeremy Corbyn:</strong></strong> 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q33 <strong>Jeremy Corbyn:</strong></strong> 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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&#151;he must consent in all of them&#151;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. <br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q34 <strong>Jeremy Corbyn:</strong></strong> 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: I think it is an inevitable consequence of our arrangements.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q35 <strong>Jeremy Corbyn:</strong></strong> Are you comfortable with that?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q36 <strong>Chair:</strong></strong> 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.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: Yes. <br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q37 <strong>Chair:</strong></strong> You would not be comfortable if it was your job to bring in such considerations of foreign policy?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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 Attorney&#173;General to say he is not prepared to prosecute because he does not see that it will achieve very much.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q38 <strong>Jeremy Corbyn:</strong></strong> 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.
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.
+ <p>
+ 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Q39 <strong>Jeremy Corbyn:</strong></strong> 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?
+ <p>
+ <em><strong>Keir Starmer</strong></em>: 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.<br>
+ <p>
+ <strong>Chair:</strong> 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. <br> <br> <br>
+ <p>
+ <hr> </td>
+ </tr>
+ </table>
-</B></FONT><BR><BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Chair:</B> 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Mr Buckland:</B> 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Chair:</B> 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Mr Llwyd:</B> I have prosecuted
-and defended cases both as a solicitor and barrister. I have not
-done any prosecution work since April 2010.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Yasmin Qureshi:</B> 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Chair:</B> That done, I invite
-Mr Llwyd to ask questions.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q1 <B>Mr Llwyd:</B></B> 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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q2 <B>Mr Llwyd:</B></B> 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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.
-<P>
-&nbsp;&nbsp;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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q3 <B>Mr Llwyd:</B></B> There
-is a belief that perhaps some police forces tend to overuse joint
-enterprise as a tool to deal with gang crime, for example.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q4 <B>Mr Llwyd:</B></B> 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.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q5 <B>Mr Llwyd:</B></B> 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.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: &quot;Joint
-enterprise&quot; 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q6 <B>Mr Llwyd:</B></B> You
-will be aware that recently there have been many appeal cases
-about joint enterprise both as to conviction and sentence.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: Yes.
-<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q7 <B>Mr Llwyd:</B></B> A
-very important case is pending in the Supreme Court which I cannot
-name for obvious reasons.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: Yes;
-that is our case.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q8 <B>Chair:</B></B> We cannot
-discuss it.
-<P>
-<B>Mr Llwyd:</B> No, indeed.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: No,
-but I am obviously well aware of it.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q9 <B>Jeremy Corbyn:</B></B>
-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 &quot;gang&quot; in this situation?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: For
-the purposes of charging as a principal or accessory you would
-not need to define &quot;gang&quot;. 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q10 <B>Jeremy Corbyn:</B></B>
-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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.
-<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q11 <B>Jeremy Corbyn:</B></B>
-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.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: The
-answer is no because we do not approach it by asking whether it
-is a gang case. We approach it by asking, &quot;What is the primary
-offence here?&quot; 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q12 <B>Chair:</B></B> What
-was the final question to which you referred?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: The
-first question is, &quot;Is there enough evidence against them
-as principals? Is there enough evidence against them as accessories?&quot;
-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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q13 <B>Ben Gummer:</B></B>
-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.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.
-<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q14 <B>Ben Gummer:</B></B>
-Is there not another calibration going on concerning those defendants
-who might act as witnesses against their co-principals?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: In
-the sense that they are not prosecuted because we want them as
-witnesses?<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q15 <B>Ben Gummer:</B></B>
-Yes; and they might be dealt with more leniently if they act as
-witnesses against their co-principals.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q16 <B>Ben Gummer:</B></B>
-Let me turn it on its head.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q17 <B>Ben Gummer:</B></B>
-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.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: That
-was why it became regulated.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q18 <B>Ben Gummer:</B></B>
-Do you think that is having a beneficial impact on public perception?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.
-<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q19 <B>Ben Gummer:</B></B>
-That is helpful. On the other side, do you think that at any time
-the doctrine of joint enterprise acts to deters witnesses?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: Do
-you mean pure witnesses or those who have participated?<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q20 <B>Chair:</B></B> 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,
-&quot;I was there and I have a pretty good idea of what happened,
-but of course I held back when the trouble really started&quot;,
-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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.
-<P>
-<B>Ben Gummer:</B> I was groping
-for a situation, but Sir Alan shows more familiarity with it.
-<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q21 <B>Chair:</B></B> I am
-not sure it is a very convincing example.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.
-<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q22 <B>Mr Buckland:</B></B>
-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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q23 <B>Mr Buckland:</B></B>
-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.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: I
-agree with that. You have to add to that the prospect that the
-individual may give evidence to say he foresaw <I>x</I> but not
-<I>y</I>, 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.
-<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q24 <B>Mr Buckland:</B></B>
-I suppose the one exception would be murder and the mandatory
-life sentence. There are tariff issues as well, are there not?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q25 <B>Mr Buckland:</B></B>
-You will be aware that the Law Commission published its report
-&quot;Participating in Crime&quot; 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.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: Yes.
-<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q26 <B>Mr Buckland:</B></B>
-First, how effective do you think those provisions have been?
-Are they used often?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q27 <B>Mr Buckland:</B></B>
-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&#151;whatever
-you want to call it&#151;on a statutory footing?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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&nbsp;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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q28 <B>Yasmin Qureshi:</B></B>
-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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q29 <B>Chair:</B></B> 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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: Yes,
-I think it would be.
-<P>
-<B>Chair:</B> We will turn now
-to another issue. I ask Mr&nbsp;Corbyn to talk about private arrest
-warrants for offences of universal jurisdiction.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q30 <B>Jeremy Corbyn:</B></B>
-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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.
-<P>
-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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q31 <B>Jeremy Corbyn:</B></B>
-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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q32 <B>Jeremy Corbyn:</B></B>
-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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q33 <B>Jeremy Corbyn:</B></B>
-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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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&#151;he must
-consent in all of them&#151;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.
-<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q34 <B>Jeremy Corbyn:</B></B>
-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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: I
-think it is an inevitable consequence of our arrangements.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q35 <B>Jeremy Corbyn:</B></B>
-Are you comfortable with that?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q36 <B>Chair:</B></B> 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.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: Yes.
-<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q37 <B>Chair:</B></B> You
-would not be comfortable if it was your job to bring in such considerations
-of foreign policy?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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 Attorney&#173;General
-to say he is not prepared to prosecute because he does not see
-that it will achieve very much.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q38 <B>Jeremy Corbyn:</B></B>
-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.
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.
-<P>
-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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Q39 <B>Jeremy Corbyn:</B></B>
-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?
-<P>
-<I><B>Keir Starmer</B></I>: 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.<BR>
-
-<P>
-<B>Chair:</B> 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.
-<BR>
-<BR>
-<BR>
-
-<P>
-<HR>
-
-
-</TD></TR>
-</TABLE>
<!-- end of variable data -->
-</TABLE>
+ </table>
<!-- footer -->
-<P>
-<TABLE width="90%">
-<TR valign=top><TD VALIGN=TOP colspan=2>&nbsp;<BR>
-
-<A href="11102501.htm"><IMG border=0 align=top src="/pa/img/prevgrn.gif" ALT="previous page"></A>
-<A href="11102501.htm"><IMG border=0 align=top src="/pa/img/ctntgrn.gif" ALT="contents"></A>
-<A href="11102503.htm"><IMG border=0 align=top src="/pa/img/nextgrn.gif" ALT="next page"></A><BR>
-<BR>
-
+ <p>
+ <table width="90%">
+ <tr valign="top">
+ <td valign="TOP" colspan="2">&nbsp;<br> <a href="11102501.htm"><img border="0" align="top" src="/pa/img/prevgrn.gif" alt="previous page"></a> <a href="11102501.htm"><img border="0" align="top" src="/pa/img/ctntgrn.gif" alt="contents"></a> <a href="11102503.htm"><img border="0" align="top" src="/pa/img/nextgrn.gif" alt="next page"></a><br> <br>
<!-- COMMENTED OUT BY RG - 22 MARCH 2011
<A href="http://www.parliament.uk/about_commons/about_commons.cfm"><IMG border=0 align=top src="/pa/img/commgrn.gif" ALT="House of Commons home page"></A>
<A href="http://www.parliament.uk/index.cfm"><IMG border=0 align=top src="/pa/img/parlgrn.gif" ALT="Parliament home page"></A>
@@ -887,49 +277,36 @@
<A href="http://www.parliament.uk/site_information/contact_us.cfm"><IMG border=0 align=top src="/pa/img/enqugrn.gif" ALT="enquiries"></A>
<A href="http://www.parliament.uk/index/index.cfm"><IMG border=0 align=top src="/pa/img/indexgrn.gif" ALT="index"></A>
-->
-
-</TD></TR>
-
-<TR><TD VALIGN=TOP colspan=2><HR></TD></TR>
-
-<TR><TD VALIGN=TOP><FONT SIZE=-1>
+ </td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td valign="TOP" colspan="2">
+ <hr></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td valign="TOP"><font size="-1">
<!--<A href="http://www.parliament.uk/site_information/parliamentary_copyright.cfm">-->
-<A href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-copyright.htm">
-<FONT SIZE=-1>&copy; Parliamentary copyright 2012</A></FONT></TD>
-<TD VALIGN=TOP align=right>
-<ADDRESS><FONT SIZE=-1>Prepared 17 January 2012</FONT></ADDRESS></TD></TR>
-
-</TABLE>
-
-</DIV>
-
- <div id="footer_holder">
- <ul id="bottomNavigation">
- <li class="first"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/azindex/">A-Z index</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/">Glossary</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/contact-us/">Contact us</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/">Freedom of Information</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/working/jobs/">Jobs</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/using-this-website/">Using this website</a></li>
- <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/">Copyright</a></li>
- </ul>
- </div>
-<!-- close contentHolder div-->
-</div>
-<script type="text/javascript">
- var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
- document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
-</script>
-<script type="text/javascript">
- try {
- var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-15845045-1");
- pageTracker._trackPageview();
- }
- catch(err) {
-
- }
-</script>
-<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.parliament.uk/assets/scripts/lbi_ga.js"></script>
-</BODY>
-</HTML>
-
+ <a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-copyright.htm"> <font size="-1">&copy; Parliamentary copyright 2012</a></font></td>
+ <td valign="TOP" align="right">
+ <address><font size="-1">Prepared 17 January 2012</font></address>
+ </td>
+ </tr>
+ </table>
+ </div>
+ <div id="footer_holder">
+ <ul id="bottomNavigation">
+ <li class="first"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/azindex/">A-Z index</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/">Glossary</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/contact-us/">Contact us</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/">Freedom of Information</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/working/jobs/">Jobs</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/using-this-website/">Using this website</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/">Copyright</a></li>
+ </ul>
+ </div>
+
+<!-- close contentHolder div-->
+ </div>
+
+ </body>
+ </html>
Please sign in to comment.
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.