Advocate-General written question – answered at on 25 January 2002.
To ask the Advocate-General what criteria she takes into account in deciding to intervene in devolution issues; and what consideration she gives to the cost to public funds.
The vast majority of cases to date have involved human rights issues. The reasons for intervention will vary according to the circumstances and the criteria are not rigid. In considering intervention I always have very much in mind the need to avoid unnecessary delay in criminal proceedings and the cost of intervention to the public purse. I have taken the view that intervention should not be a routine matter. I might for instance intervene where the case raises human rights issues of serious concern to the Government and I am satisfied that these are more likely to be resolved satisfactorily with my intervention. Experience has shown that the vast majority of devolution issues are disposed of satisfactorily by the courts, without any need for my intervention and consequent public expense. Where cases reach the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, intervention is particularly apt because that is the final authority. But even in these cases my intervention may not be necessary. My role as Advocate-General is not to intervene in cases at any level, at significant public expense, merely because there is an interesting legal point being debated.
Yes0 people think so
No0 people think not
Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.