CPS News Brief

Lord Hanningfield convicted

Paul White, known as Lord Hanningfield, has been convicted of six counts of theft by false accounting by a jury at Chelmsford Crown Court this afternoon. Stephen O’Doherty, reviewing lawyer for the CPS, welcomed the verdict:

“The defence of Lord Hanningfield, also known as Paul White, was that he was not paid a salary and that justified him claiming for expenses that he had never incurred – this was in our view completely unacceptable and clearly the jury agreed in returning guilty verdicts. It is common knowledge that a peer does not receive a salary for their services, and anyone accepting a peerage does so in that knowledge. Peers in the House of Lords are supposed to serve the public, not top-up their income at the public’s expense.

“The jury has today seen through this feeble excuse for his conduct and rightfully agreed with the prosecution that such behaviour is blatantly dishonest.”

We decided to prosecute Lord Hanningfield last year. He was convicted on all counts.

How the CPS decides when to announce its decisions

The CPS is an independent body and we announce decisions of public concern as soon as possible after the decision is reached. We have a duty to inform the victim, or their family, and the suspect as soon as we have reached a decision which concerns them. We take that duty very seriously as we understand that they will be waiting anxiously to hear the outcome of our review of the evidence.

Once we’ve reached such a decision, the timing of the announcement is aimed at ensuring that the family and the defendant can be informed first. The public will be informed as soon as is practicable after that.

Mr Ian Tomlinson: Final decision - Statement by Keir Starmer QC

On 3 May this year I announced that the decision not to prosecute anyone in relation to the death of Mr Ian Tomlinson would be reviewed in light of the verdict of unlawful killing returned by the jury at the inquest into Mr Tomlinson’s death. That review is now complete and I have this morning met Mr Tomlinson’s family to tell them the outcome.

The difficulty facing any prosecution in relation to the death of Mr Tomlinson lies in the conflicting medical evidence about the cause of death. That difficulty remains. A criminal trial is different to an inquest and it is my duty to ensure that a prosecution is only brought where there is evidence available to the prosecution that provides a realistic prospect of a jury being able to satisfy themselves beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. For that reason very careful consideration is required where there is conflicting medical evidence.

However, matters have moved on in two ways since the original decision was taken in this case. First, new medical evidence was presented at the inquest. Second, the various accounts and opinions given by the medical experts, including Dr Patel, were tested in extensive questioning at the inquest; this has changed the basis upon which the case falls to be considered. But for the inquest, the significant conflicts in the evidence that had previously existed could not have been addressed; and the inquest process, which is less confined than a criminal trial, has allowed a degree of clarity to emerge.

We have considered the new evidence adduced at the inquest and the final positions adopted by the medical experts very carefully indeed. We have also taken the advice of leading counsel, Mr Tim Owen QC, on the critical medical issues that remain.

Having done so, we are satisfied that the position in relation to the medical evidence about the cause of death has clearly changed. The difficulties that would now confront any prosecution have changed in nature and scale from last year when a decision was taken not to prosecute, although it is clear that real difficulties remain.

Taking the evidence as it now stands, we have concluded that, even with those remaining difficulties, there is now sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of successfully prosecuting PC Simon Harwood for the manslaughter of Mr Tomlinson. That being the case, it is clearly in the public interest that criminal proceedings be brought.

Accordingly, a summons charging PC Harwood with the manslaughter of Mr Tomlinson has been obtained from the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. He will appear before that court on 20 June 2011.

Can I remind all concerned that PC Harwood now faces a charge of manslaughter, and proceedings are now active. He has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice his trial.

Keir Starmer QC
Director of Public Prosecutions

Christopher Halliwell charged with second murder

We have authorised Wiltshire Police to charge Christopher Halliwell with the murder of Rebecca Godden-Edwards, who disappeared during Christmas 2002.

Mr Halliwell has already been charged with the murder of Sian O’Callaghan. Nicola Haywood, District Crown Prosecutor for CPS Wiltshire, said:

“The CPS has been working with Wiltshire Police since the body of Rebecca Godden-Edwards was discovered and identified.

“Having reviewed the evidence provided by the police, I am satisfied that there is sufficient to charge Christopher Halliwell with her murder and that it is clearly in the public interest to do so.

"I must remind all concerned that Mr Halliwell has now been charged with two serious offences and is entitled to a fair trial. Nothing should be reported that could prejudice any trial.”

Mr Halliwell will appear at Worcester Magistrates' Court tomorrow morning.

CPS Diary – Week of 23 May

Monday 23 May

• David Simmonds will make his first appearance at Nottingham Crown Court in relation to the murder of Jia Ashton. Mrs Ashton, an employee of Thorntons, disappeared on 10 March and was found dead three days later.

Wednesday 25 May

• We expect the jury to retire in the trial of Lord Hanningfield, who was charged last year with six counts under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 for false accounting in relation to his Parliamentary expenses.

Rape prosecutions

There has been debate recently about the conviction rates in rape prosecutions. While it is accepted that the number of rapes reported to police which result in conviction is low, those that are prosecuted by the CPS usually result in conviction. In fact, three in five (59.4%) of those rape cases which are charged by the CPS result in conviction.

This is a rise of just under five percentage points since 2006-7. CPS lawyers are required to explore every avenue with the police to find sufficient evidence to charge. The verdict has to be left to a jury, the CPS having gone through all the steps to support the complainant to give their best evidence.

In addition, it is misleading to say, as the Independent reported yesterday, that “the Crown Prosecution Service regards all rape as serious, but views some as more grave than others”. While sentencing may vary depending on the circumstances of the offence, our policy on prosecuting cases of rape makes clear that rape is one of the most serious offences and our aim is to prosecute each case effectively. Our policy covers the handling of all types of rape case, including marital and relationship rape, acquaintance and stranger rape, against male and female victims. All are equally serious and traumatic for the victim. Rape also has a devastating effect on families of victims. We are committed to playing our part in improving the way that rape cases are dealt with in the criminal justice system.

Joint CPS and MPS statement on Stephen Lawrence case

Stephen Lawrence was murdered on 22 April 1993 in an unprovoked attack. Two men have recently been charged with his murder: David Norris and Gary Dobson. They are both in custody and will stand trial later this year at the Central Criminal Court.

David Norris was charged with the murder of Stephen Lawrence on 8 September 2010.

Following an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, on 23 October 2010, the Court of Appeal has today quashed the acquittal of Gary Dobson and ordered a retrial. Gary Dobson was originally acquitted in 1996 of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. He was recharged with the allegation of murder on 8 September 2010.

The Metropolitan Police Service and the Crown Prosecution Service have worked tirelessly with forensic scientists to review the evidence in this case. A full forensic review was commenced in June 2006. New scientific evidence was found and on that basis the prosecution applied for a retrial. We welcome the Court of Appeal’s decision.

In order to protect the investigation and ensure a fair trial reporting restrictions were put in place in September 2010, which have now been partially lifted.

Our thoughts at this stage go to Stephen’s family, who have never given up their quest to see justice for Stephen.

Two men now stand charged with the murder of Stephen Lawrence. It is important that nothing is said or reported which could prejudice their right to a fair trial. We remind people of their responsibilities under the Contempt of Court Act to do nothing which could prejudice any future legal proceedings. The media is asked to respect the Lawrence family’s privacy at this time.

CPS Update - Monday 16 May

CPS statement on Ali Dizaei’s appeal against conviction

The Court of Appeal has ordered that Ali Dizaei should be retried for perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. The Court has said that a jury should have the opportunity to decide whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove the case against Mr Dizaei, considering the new material relating to the alleged victim. The Crown Prosecution Service accepts the judgment and will prepare for the retrial. It is important that all defendants receive a fair trial, and so it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

CPS Diary - Week of 16 May

Monday 16 May

• The Court of Appeal will give its judgment in Ali Dizaei’s appeal against conviction and sentence. He is a former Metropolitan Police Commander and was convicted in February 2010 for perverting the course of justice.

• The trial of Lord Hanningfield, in relation to Parliamentary expenses, begins at Chelmsford Crown Court.

• The trial of Danilo Restivo opens at Winchester Crown Court. He is charged with the murder of Heather Barnett, who died in her home in Dorset.

• The trial of an alleged accomplice of Raoul Moat, Scott Raisbeck, is starting at Newcastle Crown Court. He denies assisting Moat and perverting the course of justice after he allegedly moved a van used by Moat during his killing spree.

Friday 20 May

• Pakistani cricketers Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir are appearing at Southwark Crown Court for a case management hearing on Friday 20 May, alongside their agent Mazhar Majeed, over the Pakistan spot-fixing cricket allegations. Majeed is accused of accepting £150,000 to fix the actions of players.

• Mervyn Westfield, a former Essex cricketer, is charged with alleged match-fixing and will appear at Southwark Crown Court for a mention.

• Elliot Morley will be sentenced at Southwark Crown Court. He pleaded guilty to false accounting in relation to Parliamentary expenses.

• James Ibori, a former Nigerian governor, is appearing at Southwark Crown Court for a plea and case management hearing. He was extradited to the UK on fraud charges.

CPS decides no charges following death of Mark Blanco

CPS London has decided there is insufficient evidence to charge any individual with either murder or manslaughter in relation to the tragic death of Mark Blanco in December 2006. Jenny Hopkins, Head of CPS London Complex Casework Unit, said:

“Mr Blanco died of head injuries after falling from a first floor balcony in East London. To prove the offence of murder, it would have to be established that Mr Blanco was deliberately thrown or pushed from the balcony. A charge of manslaughter would require evidence that an unlawful act directly led to or substantially caused Mr Blanco’s death.

“The CPS considered all the available evidence including the statements of witnesses, the pathologists' reports on Mr Blanco’s death and CCTV footage of the incident.

“Expert evidence on fall injuries was also considered. The lack of injury to Mr Blanco’s forearms, which could have indicated that he failed to protect himself as he fell, cannot in our view be taken as conclusive evidence that he was pushed or thrown from the balcony.

“An expert on such injuries stated in a report that there is only a 20% probability that a person who falls between 11 feet and 20 feet will suffer forearm fractures. Mr Blanco fell almost 15 feet from the railing, so in the circumstances the lack of forearm fractures is not unusual.

“Evidence from another expert, Professor Wassersug, was also considered but was found to be based on assumptions that were not supported by the available evidence and could not be proved in court. Professor Wassersug concluded that Mr Blanco was most likely to have been dropped over the railings or pushed. He said if Mr Blanco had deliberately cleared the balcony railings he would have been able to protect his head from the injuries he sustained.

“This conclusion appears to be based on two assumptions: that Mr Blanco fell in a way that would have allowed him to protect his head; and that he did not come into contact with either a lamppost or a car on his descent, which could have altered his orientation. There was no evidence available to support or contradict these assumptions. Professor Wassersug also stated that the use of alcohol and drugs would have impaired Mr Blanco’s motor control and that “defensive behaviours are not always initiated effectively”.

“CCTV footage did show several individuals later leaving the same building that Mr Blanco had fallen from and passing his body, but this evidence does not shed any light on how Mr Blanco fell or who, if anyone, may have been responsible.

“None of the evidence available is capable of establishing to the required standard that Mr Blanco was thrown or pushed from the balcony or that any other individual was present at the time he fell. As we can neither establish that a criminal act may have taken place nor identify the likely perpetrator, we must conclude there is insufficient evidence to support a charge of murder or manslaughter.

“If any further evidence does come to light, we will, of course, review our decision in accordance with our normal practices.

“We have met the family of Mr Blanco today to explain our decision to them and we would like to extend our sympathies to them on their loss.”

DPP statement on allowing cameras in court

Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, was asked by the Society of Editors whether he supported proposals to televise sentencing, judges’ closing remarks and judgments. In response, he said:

“In principle I would support a proposal that judgments, judges’ closing remarks and judicial sentencing in criminal cases could be televised. There may be a case for going further, although I would obviously not want to promote anything that adversely affected the ability of victims or witnesses to give their best evidence to the court. Therefore there would need to be appropriate safeguards, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals, and any requests to televise any part of the court process should be subject to the judge’s individual discretion.

“But I think that there should be a presumption of openness in showing certain parts of a trial. I believe that transparency and visibility help the public understand how the criminal justice system works, and shining a light on the workings of the court room can only serve to boost its efficiency and effectiveness.”

Responsibility for charging decisions

Last year, the Home Secretary announced the CPS/ACPO pilot of the return of some offences to police to charge. This was largely in response to Jan Berry’s report on Reducing Bureaucracy in Policing, and recent evaluation has shown that this was successful and could save the CPS £1.5 million a year. Together, the CPS and ACPO will now undertake another pilot to return further offences to the police for charging – namely shoplifting where a not guilty plea is anticipated. Under the present arrangements the police can only charge in these cases when a guilty plea is anticipated.

The CPS took over charging decisions in the most serious, sensitive and complex cases in 2006, but police always retained around 67% of all charging decisions – made up of high volumes of less serious cases. Last year’s pilot is now being rolled out and expected to be completed by end of June. This means police charges will now account for around 72% of all charging decisions. It is predicted that this further pilot could take that figure close to 80%.

The CPS continues to make charging decisions in the most complex and serious cases, and these changes will clarify the distinction between CPS and police charging responsibility as well as continuing to speed up the charging process without affecting the quality of decision making. Those offences returned to police are now charged an estimated 30-45 minutes quicker than before, when police would need to contact a CPS lawyer and wait for them to assess the evidence.

Modernising the charging process is aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice system by cutting back on bureaucracy and minimising delays. The 4th Director of Public Prosecutions’ Guidance on Charging set outs these new charging responsibilities for police officers and the role of prosecutors.