Tag: Emily Thornberry

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2014-03-25.

To ask the Attorney General, how many and what value of asset freezing orders have been enforced in the UK at the request of overseas jurisdictions in each year since 2008-09.

Oliver Heald

The number and estimated value of restraint orders obtained by the CPS and SFO pursuant to requests from overseas jurisdictions since 2008/09 are shown in the tables below.

The value of restrained assets may vary over time due to changes in asset valuations , exchange rates and payments of expenses.

Crown Prosecution Service

Year	Number of overseas restraint orders	Estimated amount preserved (to nearest 000)
2008/09	16	£60,504,000
2009/10	15	£11,006,000
2010/11	7	£2,693,000
2011/12	2	£50,074,000
2012/13	6	£4,080,000
2013/14	3	£409,000

Serious Fraud Office

Year	Number of overseas restraint orders	Estimated amount preserved (to nearest 000)
2008/09	2	£1,000,000
2009/10	3	£69,500,000
2010/11	2	£1,500,000

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2014-03-25.

To ask the Attorney General, what steps he is taking to ensure that victims of female genital mutilation whose cases go to trial have access to the full range of support and special measures that are available to victims of other sexual offences.

Oliver Heald

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) recognises that appropriate support is vital to ensure that victims of female genital mutilation (FGM) are able to give their evidence effectively in court. The CPS legal guidance advises prosecutors that in all cases of FGM they must ensure that the complainant is aware of the special measures that can be applied for at court, and that applications are made in time. For all child witnesses there is a presumption that they will give their evidence in chief by recorded interview and any further evidence by live link unless the court is satisfied that this will not improve the quality of the child’s evidence. Adult victims of FGM are also eligible for special measures on the grounds that they are likely to be intimidated witnesses in relation to testifying at court. However it is a matter for the court to grant the application.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2014-03-25.

To ask the Attorney General, for how many cases the Serious Fraud Office has sought additional funding from the Exchequer in the last two years; and on how many occasions such funding was granted (a) in part and (b) in full.

Oliver Heald

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has sought additional funding in relation to three cases in the last two years, and this was granted in full on each occasion.

Some additional funding has also been provided in relation to other matters as set out in the recent report of the Justice Committee on the SFO’s Supplementary Estimate for 2013-14.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2014-04-01.

To ask the Attorney General, how many (a) barristers, (b) solicitors and (c) witness care staff were employed by the Crown Prosecution Service at the end of (i) 2013-14, (ii) 2012-13 and (iii) 2009-10.

Oliver Heald

The information requested is contained in the following table.

	Barristers	Solicitors	Witness Care
2009-10	853	2,353	228
2012-13	677	1,867	131
2013-14	645	1,771	100

Notes:Data extracted from the CPS HR Database iTrent as at the 31st March in each year

Data may be subject to change due to retrospective changes in the HR database

Data may differ from previously published data due to differing specifications

.

Notwithstanding the staff reductions, conviction rates have remained broadly unchanged since 2009/10.

Witness attendance remains constant over the last two financial years (to February 2014).

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2014-04-08.

To ask the Attorney General, how much money subject to a Crown Prosecution Service restraining or confiscation order has been diverted to meet the costs of a private-sector receiver in each of the last three financial years; and what proportion that amount was of all assets subject to such orders.

Oliver Heald

The following table contains data from the last 3 financial years on the total amount restrained under restraint orders, the total fees paid to management receivers, and the percentage of receivership fees as a proportion of the restrained amount:

Management Receiverships:

Financial Year	Fees Paid to Management Receivers	*Total Amount Restrained Under Restraint Order Amount	% of Receivership Fees as a Proportion of the Amount Restrained
2011 – 2012	£1,677,316.04	£ 142,861,002.70	1.17%
2012 – 2013	£ 995,667.35	£ 142,878,474.31	0.70%
2013 – 2014	£ 1,168,938.64	£ 145,485,882.31	0.80%

It should be noted that the amount restrained is constantly fluctuating due to a number of factors including payment of reasonable living expenses from restrained funds and the changing values of real property. Accordingly, it is difficult to get an accurate value as to the amount restrained at any one time.

*It should further be noted that the amount shown represents the entirety of restrained funds. However, in many cases, the receiver is appointed to manage carefully selected assets and not all of the funds restrained. Accordingly, the receiver’s fees as a proportion of the amount of restrained funds he manages could be considerably higher than the figures shown above.

The following table contains data from the last 3 financial years on the total confiscation order amount (i.e. the sum of all assets included in confiscation orders), total fees paid to enforcement receivers, and the percentage of receivership fees as a proportion of the confiscation order amount:

Enforcement Receivers:

Financial Year	Fees Paid to Enforcement Receivers	*Total Confiscation Order Amount (including any variations)	% of Receivership Fees as a Proportion of the Confiscation Order Amount
2011 – 2012	£2,716,436.53	£109,684,469.49	2.48%
2012 – 2013	£2,982,980.41	£140,752,428.67	2.12%
2013 – 2014	£1,413,235.87	£138,249,651.38	1.02%

*It should further be noted that the amount shown represents the total sum of assets available for confiscation. However, in many cases, the receiver is appointed to realise carefully selected assets and not all assets listed in the confiscation order. Accordingly, the receiver’s fees as a proportion of the assets he is appointed to realise could be considerably higher than the figures shown above.