Letter: Matters for the judicial mind
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: An unnoticed answer to a question recently asked in the House of Lords appears, possibly by inadvertence, to have indicated a further delegation from the responsibilities hitherto resting upon the Law Officers.
In answer to a question by Lord Strabolgi about the prosecution of suspected war criminals the Minister of State at the Home Office, Earl Ferrers, said on 7 July:
But the decision to prosecute will be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions after consultation with the Attorney General
This is not correct. It is the Attorney General himself, who, applying his judicial mind to the matter, has to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute in a particular case.
The Director of Public Prosecutions acts under the direction of the Attorney General, who, as Lord Simon (following Lord Birkenhead) said '. . . should absolutely decline to receive orders from the Prime Minister, the Cabinet or anybody else that he should prosecute'.
This doctrine was very recently subscribed to by those concerned in the administration of the law, including the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It is the case that pressure of other work, namely in advising Parliament or ministers on particular legal problems, has resulted in the Law Officers being unable to appear in court with any frequency, as they used to do. It would, however, be a further and serious inroad on their constitutional responsibilities if there were, without parliamentary discussion, a further delegation of administrative functions to civil servants, however able - as the DPP clearly is.
Yours truly,
SHAWCROSS
House of Lords
London, SW1
13 July
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments