Frances Gibb in today’s Times is reporting that the government will propose handing over to the DPP the Attorney’s role of consenting to a range of prosecutions – although otherwise, the Attorney’s role will remain unchanged.
I don’t say all change to the Attorney’s role is ridiculous – I’m not quite that bufferish. But the fact is that the fashionable chattering desire for change simply results from a series of controversial decisions by or involving Lord Goldsmith. I’ve yet to see a properly thought-through, sustainable proposal for change.
As for this… nonsense, isn’t it? What’s the point, if she’ll keep her role in relation to cases involving “the public interest”? And anyway, I think the whole idea of transferring consent to the DPP objectionable. The whole point of consent is to ensure some prosecution decisions have to be taken by someone responsible to Parliament. Giving that role to the DPP is no better than simply leaving it with a Crown Prosecutor. That’s all he is, after all.
If this goes through, in a year or two there’ll b calls for these decisions to be made “independently” (i.e. of the CPS) by someone “accountable” (i.e. to Parliament).
Funny that, after the Garry Newlove case, the local MP Helen Jones thought to write to the Attorney whenh she wanted someone to complain to.
Interesting.
Don’t quite see why this is nonsense. Were you aware of Law Commission Report LC 255 back in 1998?
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc255(1).pdf
This report was long before Lord Goldsmith’s Iraq advice etc.
In fact, there is a very good case for taking the decision to prosecute completely away from government Ministers. Protector of the public interest and chief legal adviser to government are not really compatible roles for the same person to hold.
Similar logic was used in relation to the Lord Chancellor who used to be a judge, minister and legislator! The roles became increasingly in conflict.
I wasn’t aware of the report, no: thanks for the link to the report.
In fact the report doesn’t back taking consent away from the Attorney in principle, though, does it? It recommends getting rid of some consent provisions just because they’re not needed; and transferring some others from the Attorney to the DPP.
But the report actually recommends that consents to prosecution of offences involving national security or an international element (which would include BAe Systems) should remain with the Attorney. It mentions the argument that the Attorney’s roles are incompatible – but it obviously doesn’t agree with it!
Just to be clear: I’m not saying the current way of doing things is perfect in every way, or that the current roles of the AG couldn’t sensibly be divided, or somehow carried out differently.
What I am saying is that the current fashionable view that the Attorney’s combination of functions is somehow wrong in principle, and that this is a serious flaw needing urgent attention, is a glib and wrong-headed one.