1-10 of 10 results for subject:Evidence
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.232 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Evidence
- We searched for
- subject_t:Evidence OR subject_t:"Law of evidence" OR subject_ses:91179
Answering member
X
Ross Cranston
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
More
Cranston, Ross (10)
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
To ask the Solicitor General, if he will make it his policy to prosecute those who produce literature including the phrase kill the Jews.
To ask the Solicitor General, if he will make it his policy to prosecute those who produce literature including the phrase kill the Jews.
Asked by
Linda Perham
(Labour)
Answered by
Ross Cranston
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
27 March 2001
For answer on
2 April 2001
Answered on
2 April 2001
Ms Perham: To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make it his policy to prosecute those who produce literature including the phrase
"Kill the Jews". [156391]
The Solicitor-General: Each case which the police send to the Crown Prosecution Service--whether involving an allegation of
anti-Semitic literature or any other offence--is reviewed by a Crown Prosecutor. All cases are carefully considered to make sure
that they meet the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which is issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences
Act 1985.
There are two stages in the decision to prosecute. The first stage is the evidential test. The Crown Prosecutor must be satisfied
that there is enough evidence to provide a `realistic prospect of conviction'. He must consider objectively whether the evidence can
be used and is reliable. The Crown Prosecutor must also consider what the defence case may be and how it is likely to affect the
prosecution case. A `realistic prospect of conviction' means that a jury or bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance
with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged.
If the case does not pass the evidential test, it must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be. If the case does
pass the evidential test, the Crown Prosecutor must then consider the second stage test to decide if a prosecution is needed in the
public interest. In cases of any seriousness, a prosecution will usually take place, unless there are public interest factors
tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. The Crown Prosecution Service will only start or
continue a prosecution when the case has passed both tests.
Offences under part III of the Public Order Act 1986, which include offences of producing and distributing racially inflammatory
material, require Law Officer's consent. Where the evidential and public interest tests are met consent to prosecute will be
granted.
Since the heightened tensions in the Middle East there have been a number of reported incidents of the publication/distribution of
racially inflammatory material targeting the Jewish Community in London.
The police have arrested individuals and seized leaflets. Files have been submitted to the CPS and are either ongoing, the decision
to prosecute having been made, or under review.
Legislation
Public Order Act 1986
Subjects
Evidence; Prosecutions; Publications; Racial violence; Antisemitism
Date
2 April 2001
Reference
156391; 366 c27-8W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, if he will list for each of the last three years how many cases brought by the CPS (a) before magistrates and (b) before Crown courts were dismissed on the grounds that the CPS had not prepared the necessary documents concerned; and if he will...
To ask the Solicitor General, if he will list for each of the last three years how many cases brought by the CPS (a) before magistrates and (b) before Crown courts were dismissed on the grounds that the CPS had not prepared the necessary documents concerned; and if he will...
Asked by
Andrew Dismore
(Labour)
Answered by
Ross Cranston
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
31 January 2001
For answer on
7 February 2001
Answered on
7 February 2001
Mr. Dismore: To ask the Solicitor-General if he will list for each of the last three years how many cases brought by the CPS (a)
before magistrates and (b) before Crown courts were dismissed on the grounds that the CPS had not prepared the necessary documents
concerned; and if he will make a statement. [148651]
The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service holds central records showing the reasons for dismissal due to there being no
case to answer in magistrates' courts and for non-jury acquittals in the Crown court. However, this information does not include a
separate count of the number of these outcomes which resulted from failure to prepare the necessary documentation.
The tables show the reasons for which cases resulted in dismissal owing to no case to answer or non-jury acquittal, during the two
years for which figures are held. Cases are divided into four broad categories; insufficient evidence (including cases in which an
essential legal element was missing from the prosecution case), public interest, unable to proceed (for example, because a key
witness failed to attend court), and a miscellaneous category. Within each of these headings more specific reasons are then given.
The main reason for dismissal due to no case to answer in magistrates courts was that a victim failed to come up to proof when
giving evidence: this amounted to 18.9 per cent. of all such outcomes in 1999-2000 and 13.5 per cent. up to December 2000.
Cases resulted in a non-jury acquittal in the Crown court mainly because a victim failed to attend the trial (13.6 per cent. of all
non-jury acquittals) or refused to give evidence (12.1 per cent. in 1999-2000 and 13.5 per cent. up to December 2000).
CPS records show that only a small number of adverse outcomes result from a failure on the part of the prosecution. During
1999-2000, the CPS identified 149 dismissals due to no case to answer, and 891 non-jury acquittals, as being attributable to a
failing on the part of the Service. The CPS and the police work together, using joint performance management techniques to identify
the reasons for a failed case and to devise local strategies, often involving guidance and training, to bring about improvement.
Reasons for dismissals in case to answer in Magistrates courts
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1999-2000 {1}2000-01
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Insufficient evidence 788 72.6 568 81.1
Inadmissible 25 2.3 14 2.0
evidence--breach of PACE
Inadmissible evidence= other 13 1.2 11 1.6
Legal element missing 103 9.5 91 13.0
Other evidential element 141 13.0 85 12.1
missing
Unreliable identification 86 7.9 59 8.4
Victim fails to come up to 205 18.9 161 23.0
proof
Other civilian witness fails 148 13.6 106 15.1
to come up to proof
Police witness fails to come 67 6.2 41 5.9
up to proof
Public Interest 12 1.1 2 0.3
Defendant with serious 1 0.1 0 0
medical problem
Effect on victims 1 0.1 1 0.1
physical/mental health
Other indictment of sentence 9 0.8 1 0.1
Informer or other PII issue 1 0.1 0 0
Unable to proceed 91 8.4 39 5.6
Victim fails to attend 39 3.6 12 1.7
Other civilian witness fails 33 3.0 15 2.1
to attend
Victim intimidation -- -- -- --
Other civilian witness 0 0 2 0.3
intimidation
Victim refuses to give 9 0.8 4 0.6
evidence
Other civilian witness 10 0.9 6 0.9
refuses to give evidence
Other Reasons 195 18.0 91 13.0
Poor legal presentation 9 0.8 3 0.4
Poor police presentation 18 1.7 9 1.3
Other 168 15.5 79 11.3
Total 1,086 -- 700 --
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} To December
Reasons for non-jury acquittals and bind overs in the Crown court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1999-2000 {1}2000-2001
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Insufficient evidence 3,671 37.2 2,701 36.7
Inadmissible 166 1.7 108 1.5
evidence--breach of PACE
Inadmissible evidence= other 254 2.6 223 3.0
Legal element missing 650 6.6 452 6.1
Other evidential element 865 8.8 653 8.9
missing
Unreliable identification 706 7.2 532 7.2
Victim fails to come up to 665 6.7 483 6.6
proof
Other civilian witness fails 321 3.3 216 2.9
to come up to proof
Police witness fails to come 44 0.4 34 0.5
up to proof
Public Interest 1,357 13.8 1,037 14.1
Defendant with serious 184 1.9 150 2.0
medical problem
Effect on victims 128 1.3 88 1.2
physical/mental health
Other indictment or sentence 894 9.1 697 9.5
Informer or other PII issue 151 1.5 102 1.4
Unable to proceed 3,245 32.9 2,569 34.9
Victim fails to attend 1,344 13.6 1,001 13.6
Other civilian witness fails 508 5.1 400 5.4
to attend
Victim intimidation 18 0.2 4 0.1
Other civilian witness 27 0.3 21 0.3
intimidation
Victim refuses to give 1,191 12.1 990 13.5
evidence
Other civilian witness 157 1.6 153 2.1
refuses to give evidence
Other Reasons 1,592 16.1 1.047 14.2
Poor legal presentation 5 0.1 5 0.1
Poor police presentation 30 0.3 15 0.2
Other 1,557 15.8 1,027 14.0
Total 9,865 7,354
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} To December
Subjects
Crown Prosecution Service; Evidence; Documents; Prosecutions
Date
7 February 2001
Reference
362 c516-8W;362 c516-7W; 148651
House
House of Commons
Answered by
Ross Cranston
(Labour)
Asked by
Andrew Mackinlay
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Oral answers to questions
To ask the Solicitor General, What procedures the CPS follows prior to making a decision not to proceed with a prosecution which is at an advanced stage.
Subjects
Criminal proceedings; Crown Prosecution Service; Evidence; Homicide; Trials
Date
1 February 2001
Reference
362 c439-40
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Answered by
Ross Cranston
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Oral answers to questions
Subjects
Criminal proceedings; Crown Prosecution Service; Evidence; Homicide; Trials
Date
1 February 2001
Reference
362 c439-40
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, What procedures the CPS follows prior to making a decision not to proceed with a prosecution which is at an advanced stage.
To ask the Solicitor General, What procedures the CPS follows prior to making a decision not to proceed with a prosecution which is at an advanced stage.
Asked by
Andrew Mackinlay
(Labour)
Answered by
Ross Cranston
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Tabled on
18 January 2001
For answer on
1 February 2001
Answered on
1 February 2001
Subjects
Criminal proceedings; Crown Prosecution Service; Evidence; Homicide; Trials
Date
1 February 2001
Reference
362 c439-40; 146807
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, for what reasons the senior CID officer overseeing the murder investigation relating to Richard Watson was not consulted prior to the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to present evidence in the trial of Linda Watson and Amanda London-Williams on 8th June 1999; and...
To ask the Solicitor General, for what reasons the senior CID officer overseeing the murder investigation relating to Richard Watson was not consulted prior to the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to present evidence in the trial of Linda Watson and Amanda London-Williams on 8th June 1999; and...
Asked by
Andrew Mackinlay
(Labour)
Answered by
Ross Cranston
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
16 January 2001
For answer on
22 January 2001
Answered on
22 January 2001
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Solicitor-General for what reasons the senior CID officer overseeing the murder investigation relating to
Richard Watson was not consulted prior to the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to present evidence in the trial of
Linda Watson and Amanda London-Williams on 8 June 1999; and if he will make a statement. [146124]
The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service decided to offer no evidence in the case against Linda Watson and Amanda
London-Williams only after very careful and detailed consultation between the Crown Prosecutor, the Queen's counsel and Junior
counsel for the Crown and the Crown's forensic science expert. The decision that there was no longer a realistic prospect of
conviction was made following the late receipt of evidence from a forensic science expert for the defence about the trajectory of
the fatal shots. The Detective Inspector dealing with the police inquiry was kept fully informed as decisions were made.
Subjects
Crown Prosecution Service; Evidence; Homicide; Trials; Watson, Richard; London-Williams, Amanda; Watson, Linda
Date
22 January 2001
Reference
361 c412-3W;361 c413-4W; 146124
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, if he will make a statement on the reasons for, and circumstances relating to, the decision of the CPS not to offer evidence at the trial of Linda Watson and Amanda London-Williams on 8th June 1999.
To ask the Solicitor General, if he will make a statement on the reasons for, and circumstances relating to, the decision of the CPS not to offer evidence at the trial of Linda Watson and Amanda London-Williams on 8th June 1999.
Asked by
Andrew Mackinlay
(Labour)
Answered by
Ross Cranston
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
16 January 2001
For answer on
22 January 2001
Answered on
22 January 2001
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the reasons for, and circumstances relating to, the
decision of the CPS not to offer evidence at the trial of Linda Watson and Amanda London- Williams on 8 June 1999. [146125]
The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service decided to offer no evidence in the case against Linda Watson and Amanda
London-Williams only after very careful and detailed consultation between the Crown Prosecutor, Queen's and Junior counsel for the
Crown and the Crown's forensic science expert. The decision that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction was made
following the late receipt of evidence from a forensic science expert for the defence about the trajectory of the fatal shots. The
Crown's own forensic expert was unable to offer any evidence by way of rebuttal.
Subjects
Crown Prosecution Service; Evidence; Homicide; Trials; London-Williams, Amanda; Watson, Linda
Date
22 January 2001
Reference
361 c412W;361 c413W; 146125
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, if he will list the conditions to be met for material found in the archives of foreign intelligence agencies to be regarded by the Crown Prosecution Service as of evidential value in legal proceedings.
To ask the Solicitor General, if he will list the conditions to be met for material found in the archives of foreign intelligence agencies to be regarded by the Crown Prosecution Service as of evidential value in legal proceedings.
Asked by
Julian Lewis
(Conservative)
Answered by
Ross Cranston
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
31 October 2000
For answer on
7 November 2000
Answered on
7 November 2000
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Solicitor-General if he will list the conditions to be met for material found in the archives of
foreign intelligence agencies to be regarded by the Crown Prosecution Service as of evidential value in legal proceedings.
[136231]
The Solicitor-General: Any statement in a document found in the archives of a foreign intelligence agency will be hearsay and
inadmissible if the reason for tendering the evidence is to prove the truth of the content of the document, unless the document can
be brought within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The most important of these, as regards statements in documents, are
found in a number of statutes, for instance the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Subjects
Evidence; Intelligence services
Date
7 November 2000
Reference
356 c115W; 136231
House
House of Commons
(Pursuant to reply on 16.05.2000 at 350 c80-1W) To ask the Solicitor General, if he will call for a report from the Crown Prosecution Service on its actions following the attack on Jay Abatan in Brighton in January 1999. - Includes ref to 350 c80-1W. (Holding answer 16 May 2000).
(Pursuant to reply on 16.05.2000 at 350 c80-1W) To ask the Solicitor General, if he will call for a report from the Crown Prosecution Service on its actions following the attack on Jay Abatan in Brighton in January 1999. - Includes ref to 350 c80-1W. (Holding answer 16 May 2000).
Asked by
Peter Bottomley
(Conservative)
Answered by
Ross Cranston
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
24 May 2000
Answered on
24 May 2000
Subjects
Death; Crimes of violence; Crown Prosecution Service; Evidence; Racial violence; Trials; Abatan, Jay
Date
24 May 2000
Reference
122482; 350 c528-31W;350 c530-3W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, if evidence presented to Lord Cullen's Inquiry into the Paddington disaster will be submissable as evidence in any subsequent criminal prosecution; if persons presenting evidence to Lord Cullen's Inquiry into the Paddington disaster will be immune from any subsequent criminal prosecution.
To ask the Solicitor General, if evidence presented to Lord Cullen's Inquiry into the Paddington disaster will be submissable as evidence in any subsequent criminal prosecution; if persons presenting evidence to Lord Cullen's Inquiry into the Paddington disaster will be immune from any subsequent criminal prosecution.
Asked by
Martin Salter
(Labour)
Answered by
Ross Cranston
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
28 January 2000
For answer on
4 February 2000
Answered on
4 February 2000
Mr. Salter: To ask the Solicitor-General (1) if evidence presented to Lord Cullen's Inquiry into the Paddington disaster will be
submissible as evidence in any subsequent criminal prosecution; [108127]
(2) if persons presenting evidence to Lord Cullen's Inquiry into the Paddington disaster will be immune from any subsequent criminal
prosecution. [108126]
The Solicitor-General: No person has been given immunity from prosecution in connection with the Paddington disaster. Witnesses to
the inquiry have been given an undertaking authorised by the Attorney General, to the effect that evidence, written statements and
documents produced by them to the inquiry will not be used in evidence against them in any criminal proceedings, except in limited
circumstances. This will not, however, prevent a prosecution based on material other than that provided to the Inquiry. The
undertaking was provided because it was certain that without it potential witnesses would be inhibited from providing Lord Cullen
with full assistance. It was important that everything reasonably possible was done to enable the inquiry to begin its work
immediately and to ensure that it would be fully effective, so that it can establish and publish the truth about the circumstances
which led to the tragic rail crash.
Subjects
Evidence; Immunity from prosecution; Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry
Date
4 February 2000
Reference
343 c752-3W; 108127;108126
House
House of Commons