Submission to the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill

by The Corner House

first published 12 June 2008

This Corner House submission to a parliamentary committee scrutinising the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill argues that the proposed legislation does not sufficiently protect the independence of prosecutors and creates a grave risk of abuse by the Government of national security arguments.

The UK Government published its draft Constitutional Renewal Bill on 25 March 2008. It establishes a statutory right for the Government, through the Attorney General, to halt any criminal prosecution or a Serious Fraud Office investigation on the grounds of national security. The new draft Bill would prevent any judicial review of such a decision, and would provide for little meaningful accountability to Parliament. If it were already law, it would have enabled the government to halt the Serious Fraud Office's BAE-Saudi corruption investigation without facing any legal challenge or parliamentary scrutiny. (The Attorney General is a political appointee, member of the Government and the Government's chief legal adviser; the office also has a legal role, however, in being responsible for all crown or state litigation.)

A parliamentary committee -- the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill -- comprising members of both upper and lower Houses of Parliament was established in April 2008 to assess and scrutinise the draft legislation and is due to report in July 2008.

This Corner House submission to the Joint Committee argues that the draft Bill does not sufficiently protect the independence of prosecutors, which is a fundamental constitutional principal in a democracy. It stresses that granting a statutory power to halt a prosecution or fraud investigation on the grounds of national security with no meaningful checks and balances creates a grave risk of abuse by the Government of national security arguments.

The Corner House believes that a decision to halt a prosecution or fraud investigation on national security grounds should be taken by an independent prosecutor (or, if taken by the Attorney General, then an Attorney General who has a statutory obligation of independence, given that the office holder is currently a member of the Government) and must be subject to judicial scrutiny.

The Corner House also argues that national security must be narrowly defined to prevent its abuse. Its submission contends that safeguarding 'national security' should not be broadened to encompass 'prejudice to international relations', defined as the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, as the draft Bill does as present.

 

Related articles on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill: