The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
1240/5(5101)
WRITTEN QUESTION TO H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 2nd FEBRUARY 2010
Question
What procedures are followed in the selection of Crown Advocates and to what extent do they conform with the selection principles laid down by the Appointments Commission? Why was prosecution work in relation to the Historic Abuse Inquiry confined to one firm in 2009?
Answer
Crown Advocates represent the Attorney General personally, and their appointment is a matter solely for him with the approval of the Bailiff . The Appointments Commission is not involved. They are invited to act for the Attorney General in criminal matters for an initial period of up to five years.
Two Crown advocates were retained for the historic child abuse enquiry at an early stage. As it turned out, all of the prosecutions arising out of the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry were conducted by one Crown advocate. There were two reasons for this. First of all, it became apparent that the state of the police investigation files meant that there was an enormous amount of work necessary to be done in cross indexing the material in police hands both to ensure that proper disclosure was made to the defence and to enable informed decisions to be taken in relation to the strengths and weaknesses of any individual potential prosecutions. This meant that it was more cost efficient to have one firm aware of the entirety of the picture emerging from the investigation. The second reason was the practical one that the other Crown advocate became immersed in a major case in the Royal Court which continued for far longer than had first been anticipated and his availability was therefore constrained.