Tag: Earl Attlee

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-01-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the implications of the police indicating to a person being interviewed under caution that no further action will be taken due to insufficient, or a lack of, evidence.

Lord Keen of Elie

The implications in such circumstances are detailed in a written answer on 31 March 1993 by the then Attorney General (Sir Nicholas Lyell), as outlined below.

The fundamental consideration remains that individuals should be able to rely on decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities. The policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions is that a decision to terminate proceedings or not to prosecute should not, in the absence of special circumstances, be altered once it has been communicated to the defendant or prospective defendant unless it was taken and expressed to be taken because the evidence was insufficient. In such a case it would be appropriate to reconsider the decision if further significant evidence were to become available at a later date especially if the alleged offence is a serious one.

Special circumstances which might justify departure from this policy include:

(1) rare cases where reconsiderations of the original decision show that it was not justified and the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system requires that a prosecution be brought notwithstanding the earlier decision; and

(2) those cases where termination has been effected specifically with a view to the collection and preparation of the necessary evidence which is thought likely to become available in the fairly near future. In such circumstances the CPS will advise the defendant of the possibility that proceedings will be re-instituted. (Official Report, Col’s 200-201).

Following this written answer and further written ministerial statements, the Crown Prosecution Service has produced guidance for prosecutors to follow concerning the exercise of the CPS discretion to institute, reinstitute or continue proceedings after a suspect has been informed by the police or CPS of a decision not to prosecute. The above mentioned Written Statements are detailed below and are published in the Official Report.

WMS – Crown Prosecutors Code – 22 February 2010. Column WS64, Baroness Scotland of Asthal.

WMS – Reconsidering a Prosecution Decision (CPS Guidance) – 31 October 2012, Col 15WS, Rt. Hon Dominic Grieve

WMS – Victim’s Right to Review – 5 June 2013, Col 99WS, Rt. Hon Dominic Grieve

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-01-21.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have the power or ability to refer Operation Midland to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Lord Bates

The Home Office is unable to refer matters to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and cannot comment on individual cases which are a matter for individual forces.

Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 places a duty on the appropriate authority to refer a matter to the IPCC under certain prescribed circumstances. The appropriate authority would usually be the chief constable or, where the complaint or conduct matter relates to a chief officer, the local policing body for the force in question.

The appropriate authority may also refer a complaint to the IPCC if it considers it appropriate to do so because of the gravity of the subject-matter or there are any exceptional circumstances involved. Where the appropriate authority is the chief constable and a case is not referred, the local policing body for the force may refer the matter to the Commission on the same grounds. The IPCC can, at any time, require the appropriate authority to refer a matter to it for consideration.

As part of the measures to strengthen the powers of the IPCC in the forthcoming Policing and Crime Bill, the IPCC will in future have the power to investigate allegations of police misconduct, death or serious injury and complaints against the police without first awaiting or requiring a referral from a force.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2015-10-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 22 October (HL2256), why 150 Recovery Company, part of 103 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, relocated from the Army Reserve Centre at Redhill to the one at Croydon, in the light of the fact that the related infrastructure developments had not progressed past the initial assessment phase.

Earl Howe

The relocation of 150 Company from Redhill to Croydon was part of the redesign of the Army Reserve as part of Future Reserves 2020 and Army 2020. In this case the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers were realigned to better integrate the Reserve component with their Regular Army partners. It also sought to maximise the potential for future recruitment, which in some cases necessitated the relocation of smaller units and sub-units.

While it was recognised that the infrastructure of the Croydon Army Reserve Centre required some improvement, it was deemed no worse than that at Redhill Army Reserve Centre. Therefore, an early move was agreed to realise the wider benefit of an increased recruiting footprint, thus ensuring that 103 Battalion REME could grow in strength and maintain the critical mass necessary for effective training and therefore operational capability

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, of the enhancements originally planned in order to accommodate heavy recovery vehicles for the Army Reserve Centre at Mitcham Road, Croydon, which have been implemented, and which have been deferred, cancelled, postponed, or otherwise not implemented.

Earl Howe

Infrastructure developments related to the relocation of 150 Recovery Company, part of 103 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, to the Army Reserve Centre in Croydon have not progressed past the initial assessment phase. Therefore, no detailed plans have been developed nor funds allocated. The unit continues to deliver its required outputs including training with heavy recovery vehicles.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much expenditure this financial year has been saved or postponed by not implementing enhancements originally planned in order to accommodate heavy recovery vehicles for the Army Reserve Centre at Mitcham Road, Croydon.

Earl Howe

Infrastructure developments related to the relocation of 150 Recovery Company, part of 103 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, to the Army Reserve Centre in Croydon have not progressed past the initial assessment phase. Therefore, no detailed plans have been developed nor funds allocated. The unit continues to deliver its required outputs including training with heavy recovery vehicles.