Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Service Prosecutions

House of Lords written question – answered on 21st November 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever Spokespersons In the Lords, Foreign Affairs, Spokespersons In the Lords, Defence, Spokespersons In the Lords, International Development, Deputy Chief Whip, Whips

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will investigate why the transcript of the interview which the Metropolitan Police held with Corporal Blair was not included in the material that was placed before the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General at the time a decision was made to prosecute Trooper Williams in the civil courts.

Photo of Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith Attorney General, Law Officers' Department, Attorney General (Law Officers)

The decision to prosecute Trooper Williams was made by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on 25 August 2004. The material upon which it was based included a statement compiled from the interview but not the transcript of the interview itself which was not forwarded by the Metropolitan Police to the CPS until 15 September 2004. I did not make the decision to prosecute.

As a result, the transcript was not submitted to either myself or the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) at that stage.

When, shortly thereafter, the transcript was sent to the CPS the reviewing lawyer reviewed the decision to prosecute in light of the contents of the interview and concluded its contents did not affect the decision to prosecute.

The transcript of interview was first formally received into the DPP's private office on or about 21 February 2005 but the DPP believes that he discussed the content of the interview with leading counsel prior to 21 February 2005 on a date unknown.

My office was first provided with a copy of the transcript on 14 March 2005 which was requested because it had been referred to by the defence on their application.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes0 people think so

No0 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.