Oral question asked in the House of Commons, by Harry Cohen (Labour). It was answered on Thursday, 24 May 2007 on behalf of the Solicitor General.

Prosecution Policy

Question: The Army Prosecuting Authority dropped a case against British soldiers, despite lots of evidence having been on worldwide TV, saying that it had happened more than six months before. It claimed in its press release that the same applied to the civil authorities. Can the Solicitor-General confirm that if a thug beats someone up and lies low for six months, he will not be prosecuted despite the evidence? Is that the law, or has the Army Prosecuting Authority got it wrong?

Answer: The Army Prosecuting Authority has to look at the evidence before it and decide whether a prosecution is able to take place with witnesses who can give effective evidence to secure that prosecution. If the evidential test is not passed, the prosecutors will not take the case forward; if it is passed, they can take it forward. They will then have to consider public interest issues. My hon. Friend appears to be talking about the evidential test. I am happy to discuss the issues with him further, but it seems from what he says that the evidential test was not passed.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 460 c1426
Session: 2006-07
Oral question type: 1st Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: Crown Prosecution Service Evidence Prosecutions Policy Army Prosecuting Authority Armed forces
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk