Live Attorney General Questions House of Commons

Join me for a round-up of the day in both Houses at 11 o'clock tonight.

First, we have questions to the Attorney-General, he is right. Mr

Speaker, with your permission, I will answer this question along with

question for. Securities can apply for special measures to allow

victims and witnesses to give evidence in court and seen by the

defendant, and the Government is making available the opportunity for

vulnerable witnesses to give pre-recorded evidence without going

into a courtroom at all. It makes clear what prosecutors can do to

explain what is likely to happen at court, so that victims and witnesses

can better understand the trial process and give the best evidence

they can. I am encouraged, but half of all cases going through the court

at the moment for sexual abuse. With police investigating no fewer than

70,000 claims this year alone, that figure is likely to remain high.

Given the traumatising impact on children especially, reliving their

experiences in the witness box, what additional measures are being taken

to make the process less intimidating, especially regarding

counselling services being available? I think it is important

that the system does all that it can to reduce the effect on especially

vulnerable witnesses of giving evidence in these cases. That's why

I'm delighted that my right honourable friend the Lord

Chancellor has decided to extend what I believe was a successful

pilot of cross-examination. That means that vulnerable witnesses,

particularly children, can give their evidence outside of a

courtroom environment, and have it all done and dusted before the trial

begins, which means they're also not affected by any delays that the

trial may be subject to. That is hugely important, as, as I say, is

the opportunity for prosecutors to speak to witnesses and explain what

is going on. That has resulted in much improved satisfaction rates

among witnesses for the support they get from the CPS. Will the

Attorney-General join me in thanking the work of the NSPCC and Esther

Rantzen in their work on reducing the intimidating environment in

courts for children and could he confirm how many children give

evidence in court? Mr Speaker, I'll have to write to right honourable

friends on the figure he asks for. But in relation to his comments

about the NSPCC, I entirely agree with him. It is worth noting that

there are a variety of organisations who assist tremendously in the work

of the criminal justice system in making sure, as I say, that all

witnesses can give their best evidence. That's in the interests of

the whole system, and it is especially important when we are

dealing with children. Ester Speaker, I've only attended one

trial, a murder trial, where, in the summing up, the family of a young

lady who was brutally murdered had to listen to an absolutely appalling

character assassination, totally fraudulent. They have to sit there

and listen to that - has anything been done to stop that horrible

practice? I understand entirely the point that the honourable gentleman

makes fish he will recognise that in a criminal trial, it is necessary

that the defence case is put. We need that in order to make sure that

the process is fair. We are doing what we can to make sure that those

who are in court not of their own volition they are either a victim or

a witness, that their experience is as easy as it was we can be, though

we accept it will never be completely easy. Could the minister

outlined what steps have been taken to address the constabulary, and the

CPS report, which revealed that some honourable people are being let down

by the inconsistency of approach to criminal cases, and how successful

have these steps being? Yes. I recognise the point that the

honourable gentleman makes. This was a troubling report in some ways. One

of the most troubling aspects, I think, is the way in which those who

are victims of crime in particular are communicated with by the CPS,

the language that's used, and the sensitivity that is shown. And so,

right honourable friends the solicitor general and myself have

been keen to insure that the Crown Prosecution Service take those

lessons on board and act on them. I am confident that they are doing so.

What steps has the CPS taken to support victims and witnesses with

mental health issues? Again, my honourable friend makes a good

point, and there are many people within the system, both defendants

and witnesses, who do have such mental health difficulties. It is

important the system is sensitive to that. What we need to do is to

understand better what the particular needs of each witness may

be, and then respond to them as best we can. Their way to do that is to

have the maximum number of tools available and ways in which evidence

can be given, whether that is pre-recorded examination, as I have

mentioned, or the assistance of others in court who can help those

who give evidence. Will be Attorney-General ensure that no

witness were defendant can give evidence to court whilst wearing a

full face balaclava or the burqa? Well, Mr Speaker, I think what is

important is that the court and the jury in particular can assess the

evidence that a witness gives. So it is important that that witness is

able to give evidence in a clear way, so that the jury can assess

whether they think that witnesses telling the truth or not. Anything

that gets in the way of that, I'm sure the court will wish to consider

very carefully. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Be committed in our

manifesto that we would extend the scope of the duly lenient scheme. We

announced that we will be extending it so that it applies to terrorism

offences, sentenced in the Crown Court. We are working with her to

intimate that. I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, to my honourable friend

for confirming that the manifesto commitment that we made is still on

track. But I would be very grateful if he could be a little bit more

specific about what dates we might be able to make some headway on.

Because these reforms are long overdue? Well, my honourable friend

is right to press the government as to a commitment to action. Work is

being done with the Ministry of Justice. I can tell him that both

the attorney and I are committed to ironing out the obvious

system, which do cause system, which do cause

understandable frustration amongst victims and their families. Can I

ask my honourable friend, over the last 12 months, how often has he

been asked to review sentences handed down by the courts? Well, the

number of sentences considered continues to increase. In 2015, we

considered 713 requests. It is interesting to note that of 80,000

sentences passed in England and Wales in that year, only just over

100 were varied by the scheme. I think that shows a vote of

confidence in our judges and magistrates. Mr Speaker, the

Government's working very closely with the police can CPS and

community organisations to monitor any changes in hate crime levels and

will continue to do so after the triggering of Article 50. It is not

possible to predict prosecution trends, and the data is

not disaggregated on nationalities and

victims. Can I ask the solicitor general what

steps are being taken to improve the conviction rate for hate crimes

against disabled people, and will he confirm whether he will support the

call from the shadow solicitor general for parity in the regime for

all detected characteristics? Well, the honourable member will be glad

to note that rates of disability hate crime plus a continued to rise.

Rise last year was. The conviction rate for hate crime being just over

83%. The total number of hate crimes prosecuted last year was 15,442. It

is the highest number today to. I of course take very seriously the

helpful and sensible suggestions by the honourable gentleman, the Shadow

Solicitor General. Can my honourable friend outlined what steps his

department is taking to prevent the spread of hate crime via the media?

As we know, in an age of social media, it has become all too easy

for perpetrators to spread hate and intimidation. The CPS take very

seriously offences which crossed the line into Ruth Lea offensive

communications, and prosecutions take place regularly, and we will

continue to work with social media to make sure that the detection of

these crimes can be improved. The case which concluded in the Supreme

Court last week dealt with an important constitutional issue. It

was absolutely right that the Government both defended its

position and appealed the first instance judgment in England and

Wales to the Supreme Court, where the case was heard alongside

connected litigation from the Northern Ireland courts. The figures

for the total costs of these cases will be published in due course. But

I can confirm to the House that the advocate-general for Scotland and I,

on behalf of the government, received no additional fee for our

work on the case. I think the Attorney-General for the response.

I'm not sure we got any closer to learning the figure. Given that

every single legal commentator in the land said that it was deemed to

fail, why was it necessary to waste taxpayers' money on funding the

appeal? I'm afraid I do not agree with the honourable gentleman's

promise. First of all, I think it IS the right place to decide a case of

this significance, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Secondly, if

the Government's arguments were as hopeless as he suggests, three

Supreme Court justices would not have agreed with them. Thirdly, as I

pointed out to him, the case was in the Supreme Court partly because

there were Northern Ireland cases appealed to the Supreme Court not by

the Government but by the other parties to which the Government

responded and on which by the way the Government was successful.

Fourthly, it was also true that in the Supreme Court, they were dealing

with arguments made by the devolved governments, which had to be dealt

with by the Supreme Court and which, again, the Government was entirely

successful. Finally, can I say this? I think it is a good thing that in a

system governed by the rule of law, a government is prepared to go to

court to argue its case, make use of appeal mechanisms, like any other

litigator, and then abide by the final outcome. That is what has

happened, and I think it is a good example of where rule of law systems

should work. Does my right honourable friend

agree when members of the public being cases against the government,

there are conflicting decisions, our government had no alternative

whatsoever but to pursue this matter to the Supreme Court? I do agree

with that, Mr Speaker. I think it's important, as I say, the Supreme

Court resolve this matter, gave us clarity on what should happen and

it's now for Parliament to decide what to do next and I'm pleased to

see Parliament began to answer the question it had been posed. When the

results are published, will the government make sure the price

exacted was liberty and freedom from bureaucrats of Brussels which it is

difficult to attach any cause to? I take the honourable gentleman's

point, this will be an expensive case but I think the answer that the

British people gave it should be respected and acted upon and that,

as I say, is a matter for Parliament, no longer a legal

matter. The Attorney General may be needs to think again about some of

the dubious shorthand that he uses in respect of the default cases. The

Supreme Court really only make your judgement is in relation to two of

the five matters in relation to Northern Ireland and in some of

those political observations are telling in ways that the government

has yet to inspect. The reason the other three issues weren't

determined is that they didn't need to be because other aspect of the

case were decided as they were. I'm afraid the position is very clear,

in relation to the arguments made particularly by the devolved

administrations that there should be the capacity but those

administrations to veto the process of leaving the European Union, the

Court simply didn't agree and rejected those arguments

unanimously. On the subject of the cost to the public purse, rather

than I'd hoped would be a rerun of the arguments which would

tedious. I think the whole house tedious. I think the whole house

would like to know we get value for money and that judgement and there's

plenty of obligations in many acts of Parliament and that the courts

placed to judge them. I think, Mr Speaker, when the honourable

gentleman reads the judgement carefully as I'm sure he will, what

it says is that the civil convention, whereas may be important

allegedly is not a matter for the courts to enforce, that was

perfectly and properly for the Supreme Court to say. The opposite

words, public purse and please, can we stick to that, it would be

helpful? Vista Speaker, if the government was genuinely motivated

to spend this money by wanting a definitive answer from the courts on

a constitutional question why did the government not thank the judges

in the divisional Court in November for such a clear answer. Instead be

in a position where the Justice Secretary had to be pressured into

giving a lukewarm defence? No, Mr Speaker, the government has always

been clear that at every level courts are entitled to consider the

case is brought to them and to reach whatever judgement they think

appropriate in the light of the arguments they have heard. That was

true in relation to the High Court, true in relation to the Cyprian

Court but he knows is an eminent lawyer himself, the appropriate

thing to do if you disagree with a Court of first instance is to appeal

bad judgement, that's exactly what the government did, doing exactly

what any litigator would do and incidentally, exactly what some

litigators in this case did in Northern Ireland. Isn't it

absolutely remarkable that we have significant numbers of litigants in

person in our courts because of the governments legal aid cuts and yet

when the government wanted a lawyer when the government wanted a

money was found? Isn't it the case money was found? Isn't it the case

that in terms of access to justice, it's one route the government and

one room for everybody else? I'm tempted to point out as I said

earlier that when the government wanted a lawyer, two out of the

three it used in the Supreme Court didn't cost the taxpayer anything

but I would point out to him it's important in cases like this are

brought under make no criticism of those who brought these cases so

that these issues could be resolved, it's important that they are

resolved through proper and full legal argument. That was done

through the High Court and then the Supreme Court, but the right way to

get to be answered the Supreme Court has given and as he knows I've made

clear many times, the government will honour and respect the

judgement of the Supreme Court. Number six, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker,

UK nationals can be prosecuted in our domestic courts were genocide,

crimes against humanity and war crimes that have taken place abroad.

My honourable friend will know that the UK Government is also working

with other governments to explore international legal mechanisms

whereby Ayyash can be held to account for its crimes. As it

appears no steps are currently being taken by the International Criminal

Court to pursue crimes against international humanity in Syria or

Iraq and the spiteful ten this is advocating is our steps being taken

by the UK to use legal competencies to prosecute UK national team may be

committing such crimes in Syria or Iraq? My honourable friend will know

in relation to the International Criminal Court the UK Government

sought to pursue a route for by the ICC would consider offences of this

type in Iraq and Syria and she will know that particular approach was

vetoed by the Russians and Chinese, so it's no lack of effort on the

half of the UK. In relation to domestic law, we will certainly

pursue these offences is and where we can, she will recognise that the

primary tactical difficulties obtaining the evidence needed and

one of the things we aren't looking at Adam international level is how

to make sure evidence is retained and collected properly, in theatre,

so it can be used for prosecutions when the time comes. Questions to

the Minister for women and equality is. Question number one, Mr Speaker.

Minister Justine Greening. Thank you. The government wants to ensure

all schools are safe in inclusive environments where pupils can fulfil

their potential and the government decide to