1-20 of 918 results for subject:"Immunity certificates"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.409 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.006 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Immunity certificates"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Immunity certificates" OR subject_t:"PII certificates" OR subject_t:"Public interest immunity certificates" OR subject_ses:10857
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in how many cases has the Public Interest Immunity Procedure been invoked since the Justice and Security Act 2013 became law.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in how many cases has the Public Interest Immunity Procedure been invoked since the Justice and Security Act 2013 became law.
The Justice and Security Act 2013 deals with oversight of the UK intelligence and security agencies and sets out the process by which closed material proceedings may be authorised to enable court hearings to take place using sensitive intelligence material.
The Home Office does not hold information on applications to the courts for Public Interest Immunity.
The Ministry of Justice publishes regular reports on the use of closed material proceedings under the Justice and Security Act 2013. These can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/use-of-closed-material-procedure-reports.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many Public Immunity Interest Immunity Procedures have been (a) applied for and (b) granted by Devon and Cornwall Police in each of the last 10 years.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many Public Immunity Interest Immunity Procedures have been (a) applied for and (b) granted by Devon and Cornwall Police in each of the last 10 years.
The Justice and Security Act 2013 deals with oversight of the UK intelligence and security agencies and sets out the process by which closed material proceedings may be authorised to enable court hearings to take place using sensitive intelligence material.
The Home Office does not hold information on applications to the courts for Public Interest Immunity.
The Ministry of Justice publishes regular reports on the use of closed material proceedings under the Justice and Security Act 2013. These can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/use-of-closed-material-procedure-reports.
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many public interest immunity applications her Department has (a) received and (b) approved in the last five years.
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many public interest immunity applications her Department has (a) received and (b) approved in the last five years.
Records indicate that my Department has received and approved a total of 31 applications for public interest immunity in the last five years.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government in how many cases since the passage of the Justice and Security Act 2013 the public interest immunity procedure has been invoked; and how much compensation has been paid as a result.[HL348]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government in how many cases since the passage of the Justice and Security Act 2013 the public interest immunity procedure has been invoked; and how much compensation has been paid as a result.[HL348]
The Public Interest Immunity procedure may be used in a wide variety of court proceedings and as such no central record exists of its application.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government on how many occasions since 2010 Public Interest Immunity certificates have been granted in cases of alleged fraud; and how many certificates were granted in each case.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government on how many occasions since 2010 Public Interest Immunity certificates have been granted in cases of alleged fraud; and how many certificates were granted in each case.
My Lords, public interest immunity, or PII, certificates are ministerial instruments used in legal proceedings where the disclosure of sensitive material would cause a real risk of serious prejudice to an important public interest. Although applications for PII have been made in criminal fraud cases since 2010, I am not aware of any PII applications relating to fraud cases that involved ministerial PII certificates.
My Lords, public interest immunity, or PII, certificates are ministerial instruments used in legal proceedings where the disclosure of sensitive material would cause a real risk of serious prejudice to an important public interest. Although applications for PII have been made in criminal fraud cases since 2010, I am not aware of any PII applications relating to fraud cases that involved ministerial PII certificates.
My Lords, public interest immunity, or PII, certificates are ministerial instruments used in legal proceedings where the disclosure of sensitive material would cause a real risk of serious prejudice to an important public interest. Although applications for PII have been made in criminal fraud cases since 2010, I am not aware of any PII applications relating to fraud cases that involved ministerial PII certificates.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government on how many occasions since 2010 Public Interest Immunity certificates have been granted in cases of alleged fraud; and how many certificates were granted in each case.
My Lords, is not the noble and learned Lord’s Answer relevant virtually only to the case of Asil Nadir? Is it not ridiculous, and a mockery of British justice, that Asil Nadir came back to this country with all the evidence to clear his name, and that the Serious Fraud Office sought to hide behind more than 35 public interest immunity certificates? The SFO used the international status of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to avoid going there to examine the books although, 20 years previously, it had already been told by the administrators for Polly Peck that the audited books were in order. Is this not a contradiction of British justice?
My Lords, is not the noble and learned Lord’s Answer relevant virtually only to the case of Asil Nadir? Is it not ridiculous, and a mockery of British justice, that Asil Nadir came back to this country with all the evidence to clear his name, and that the Serious Fraud Office sought to hide behind more than 35 public interest immunity certificates? The SFO used the international status of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to avoid going there to examine the books although, 20 years previously, it had already been told by the administrators for Polly Peck that the audited books were in order. Is this not a contradiction of British justice?
My Lords, I readily acknowledge the determination with which the noble Lord has pursued these matters. As I have previously indicated to him, it is a long-standing convention that applications for PII certificates are neither confirmed nor denied. Indeed, I gave the noble Lord a Written Answer earlier this year in which I set out the reasons for that.
Immediately before coming into your Lordships’ House, I inquired about the status of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It is my understanding that these issues were raised during the trial of Asil Nadir and that Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials were examined on the matter. As a matter of general law, the use of a PII to prevent disclosure of sensitive material does not render any trial unfair. Whether materials are or are not disclosed is not a decision for Ministers or for the prosecution; it is the decision of the trial judge. The trial judge will not allow a PII claim to stand if to do so would render the trial of the defendant unfair.
My Lords, I readily acknowledge the determination with which the noble Lord has pursued these matters. As I have previously indicated to him, it is a long-standing convention that applications for PII certificates are neither confirmed nor denied. Indeed, I gave the noble Lord a Written Answer earlier this year in which I set out the reasons for that.
Immediately before coming into your Lordships’ House, I inquired about the status of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It is my understanding that these issues were raised during the trial of Asil Nadir and that Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials were examined on the matter. As a matter of general law, the use of a PII to prevent disclosure of sensitive material does not render any trial unfair. Whether materials are or are not disclosed is not a decision for Ministers or for the prosecution; it is the decision of the trial judge. The trial judge will not allow a PII claim to stand if to do so would render the trial of the defendant unfair.
My Lords, I readily acknowledge the determination with which the noble Lord has pursued these matters. As I have previously indicated to him, it is a long-standing convention that applications for PII certificates are neither confirmed nor denied. Indeed, I gave the noble Lord a Written Answer earlier this year in which I set out the reasons for that.
Immediately before coming into your Lordships’ House, I inquired about the status of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It is my understanding that these issues were raised during the trial of Asil Nadir and that Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials were examined on the matter. As a matter of general law, the use of a PII to prevent disclosure of sensitive material does not render any trial unfair. Whether materials are or are not disclosed is not a decision for Ministers or for the prosecution; it is the decision of the trial judge. The trial judge will not allow a PII claim to stand if to do so would render the trial of the defendant unfair.
My Lords, is not the noble and learned Lord’s Answer relevant virtually only to the case of Asil Nadir? Is it not ridiculous, and a mockery of British justice, that Asil Nadir came back to this country with all the evidence to clear his name, and that the Serious Fraud Office sought to hide behind more than 35 public interest immunity certificates? The SFO used the international status of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to avoid going there to examine the books although, 20 years previously, it had already been told by the administrators for Polly Peck that the audited books were in order. Is this not a contradiction of British justice?
Does my noble friend agree that the PII ministerial certificates should be used sparingly, if only because they are made without anyone representing the interests of a defendant being present? That places a great burden on the trial judge, who has to second guess what the defence is likely to say on certain issues. It also means that the defence is unable to answer allegations which can easily be made, but which may be incorrect.
Does my noble friend agree that the PII ministerial certificates should be used sparingly, if only because they are made without anyone representing the interests of a defendant being present? That places a great burden on the trial judge, who has to second guess what the defence is likely to say on certain issues. It also means that the defence is unable to answer allegations which can easily be made, but which may be incorrect.
My Lords, as I indicated, in the case of criminal fraud trials since 2010, I am not aware of any case where a ministerial PII certificate has been advanced. I acknowledge that PII certificates are more commonly used in civil cases, and I accept my noble friend’s point, that that should proceed only after very careful consideration.
My Lords, as I indicated, in the case of criminal fraud trials since 2010, I am not aware of any case where a ministerial PII certificate has been advanced. I acknowledge that PII certificates are more commonly used in civil cases, and I accept my noble friend’s point, that that should proceed only after very careful consideration.
My Lords, as I indicated, in the case of criminal fraud trials since 2010, I am not aware of any case where a ministerial PII certificate has been advanced. I acknowledge that PII certificates are more commonly used in civil cases, and I accept my noble friend’s point, that that should proceed only after very careful consideration.
Does my noble friend agree that the PII ministerial certificates should be used sparingly, if only because they are made without anyone representing the interests of a defendant being present? That places a great burden on the trial judge, who has to second guess what the defence is likely to say on certain issues. It also means that the defence is unable to answer allegations which can easily be made, but which may be incorrect.
My Lords, is not the SFO—the Serious Fraud Office—a seriously failing office? What expectations does the noble and learned Lord have of it improving on its rather poor record thus far?
My Lords, is not the SFO—the Serious Fraud Office—a seriously failing office? What expectations does the noble and learned Lord have of it improving on its rather poor record thus far?
My Lords, I think that that goes slightly wide of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. From Written Statements which have been made in the other place by the Attorney-General, and which I have placed in your Lordships’ House, I know of a number of steps have been taken recently to improve the operation of the Serious Fraud Office. However, I will ensure that the comments made by the noble Lord are drawn to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend, the Attorney General.
My Lords, I think that that goes slightly wide of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. From Written Statements which have been made in the other place by the Attorney-General, and which I have placed in your Lordships’ House, I know of a number of steps have been taken recently to improve the operation of the Serious Fraud Office. However, I will ensure that the comments made by the noble Lord are drawn to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend, the Attorney General.
My Lords, I think that that goes slightly wide of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. From Written Statements which have been made in the other place by the Attorney-General, and which I have placed in your Lordships’ House, I know of a number of steps have been taken recently to improve the operation of the Serious Fraud Office. However, I will ensure that the comments made by the noble Lord are drawn to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend, the Attorney General.
My Lords, is not the SFO—the Serious Fraud Office—a seriously failing office? What expectations does the noble and learned Lord have of it improving on its rather poor record thus far?
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to table secondary legislation under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 on certificates of immunity.
[157421]
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to table secondary legislation under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 on certificates of immunity.
[157421]
[holding answer 3 June 2013]: The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), expects the secondary legislation commencing the changes to the provisions regarding certificates of immunity from listing under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to come into force on 25 June 2013
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Wallace of Tankerness on 18 March (WA 95), what criteria they apply when deciding what details of public interest immunity applications it would be appropriate to make public.[HL6625]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Wallace of Tankerness on 18 March (WA 95), what criteria they apply when deciding what details of public interest immunity applications it would be appropriate to make public.[HL6625]
All Public Interest Immunity (PII) applications are made only in exceptional circumstances. If the prosecutor is satisfied that disclosure of the material will create a real risk of serious prejudice to an important public interest then a PII application will need to be made.
There are three classes of application. The first class of application requires the prosecutor to give notice to the defence of an application and indicate what type of material is held. In these cases there is an inter partes hearing in open court. With the second class of application, the prosecutor must again give notice to the defence but does not indicate what type of material is held, as to do so would inevitably disclose the sensitive information in question. The defence may make representations as to the procedure to be adopted but the application will be heard in their absence and not in public. Finally, the third class of application is one in which the defence are given no notice as to do so would have the effect of revealing the sensitive information. Neither the defence nor the public will be allowed access to such hearings. This third class of application is highly exceptional. It is
important to note that the decision to withhold the information is ultimately one for the court to determine and if the decision is that the material must be disclosed the prosecution must either comply or abandon the case.
Given the three types of application that might be made, it would not be appropriate to make public the details of PII applications, as such information may prejudice an important public interest.
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4 and in doing so, I shall also speak to the other amendments
in this group. It is fair to say that the provisions dealing with closed material procedures have undergone significant changes...
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4 and in doing so, I shall also speak to the other amendments
in this group. It is fair to say that the provisions dealing with closed material procedures have undergone significant changes...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many documents were subject to public interest immunity certificates during the trial of Asil Nadir.[HL5942]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many documents were subject to public interest immunity certificates during the trial of Asil Nadir.[HL5942]
It would not be appropriate to comment on any substantive application for public interest immunity or to provide details.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to apply for public interest immunity certificates for the three boxes of documents relating to the Asil Nadir case recently found by the Serious Fraud Office; and, if so, under what legal mechanism. [HL5943]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to apply for public interest immunity certificates for the three boxes of documents relating to the Asil Nadir case recently found by the Serious Fraud Office; and, if so, under what legal mechanism. [HL5943]
It would not be appropriate to comment on any substantive application for public interest immunity or to provide details.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the public interest immunity certificates issued during the trial of Asil Nadir are still in force; and, if so, for what reason.[HL5944]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the public interest immunity certificates issued during the trial of Asil Nadir are still in force; and, if so, for what reason.[HL5944]
It would not be appropriate to comment on any substantive application for public interest immunity or to provide details.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I commend the Bill in its present form to the House.
The first point to reflect on, in considering the Bill in its entirety, is the debt we owe to our security and intelligence services. Unfortunately, we face unprecedented...
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I commend the Bill in its present form to the House.
The first point to reflect on, in considering the Bill in its entirety, is the debt we owe to our security and intelligence services. Unfortunately, we face unprecedented...
I am most grateful for your advice, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that the Minister without Portfolio did not give way to me earlier. He has again made the assertion that the Government are being forced to settle cases, but his assertion would have more appeal if they did not...
I am most grateful for your advice, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that the Minister without Portfolio did not give way to me earlier. He has again made the assertion that the Government are being forced to settle cases, but his assertion would have more appeal if they did not...