To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend that the Attorney-General should be empowered to review arrest warrants in private prosecutions against political persons.

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Bach said last week in response to a similar Question, Her Majesty’s Government are looking at this issue urgently. I regret, however, that the week that has elapsed has not been sufficient to bring the matter to a conclusion and I can only say again that no decisions have yet been made.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Do the Government accept, however, that the paramount requirement is to sustain the commitment of this country to enable war crimes under the Geneva Convention to continue to be triable in English courts? Will the Government further recognise that the political nature of the roles of the Law Officers makes it highly unsuitable that they should be empowered to prevent arrests from taking place?

My Lords, on the first question, Her Majesty’s Government have no intention to restrict the so-called universal jurisdiction, for which, as a party to certain international conventions, the UK has legislated in respect of some grave offences. We take our commitment to tackling serious international crimes extremely seriously. The role of the Law Officers in any proposal that the Government may bring forward will be addressed when those proposals are brought forward.

My Lords, in what possible circumstances, where there is a prima facie case against someone for whom an arrest warrant has been issued and where no extradition agreement is involved, would we decide not to proceed in the trying of that person?

My Lords, the level of evidence that a court needs to issue an arrest warrant is well short of the presumption that a case can succeed. Before a case would be prosecuted, the final decision would be made by the Attorney-General. The considerations that she would take into account would certainly include whether or not a case would be likely to succeed and would be in the public interest. There is no requirement for a magistrates’ court to take those issues into account in deciding to issue an arrest warrant.

My Lords, will the review bear in mind what would have happened in 1992, if I remember correctly, if Saddam Hussein had turned up in London having committed the crime of hostage taking under international law?

My Lords, the offences of a universal jurisdiction would undoubtedly have meant that the state would have taken action in those circumstances, unless Saddam Hussein had come in a way where diplomatic immunity protected him. If he was so protected, that protection would apply, just as it does all over the world, but the state would certainly proceed against any citizen not so protected, if there was a proper case. It is difficult to believe that those negotiating these treaties had in mind the circumstance of a private individual going to a court for an arrest warrant. It is clear that the duty is on the state. This state—the British Government—does not stand away from those duties to proceed against individuals where, after proper investigation, there is a proper case.

My Lords, we are talking on this Question purely about private prosecutions being brought. Those private prosecutions, as we know, can do immense damage to our standing in the world. I am thinking of the recent occasion where a former Israeli Minister was unable to visit this country because of the threat of such a private prosecution. Could not the Government move somewhat more quickly in looking at the role of the Attorney-General and might it not have been possible for the Attorney-General herself to have answered this Question?

My Lords, the Government are very much seized of the event and its consequences. The Foreign Secretary said:

“We are determined to protect and develop these ties … Israeli leaders—like leaders from other countries—must be able to visit and have a proper dialogue with the British Government”.

It is the Government’s wish that those things can take place. Nevertheless, we have this relatively unique private prosecution in UK law; it is in the same form only in Australia and New Zealand. We need to look at its role. There are these three things to look at together: universal jurisdiction, the matter of the leaders and private prosecution. Those three coming together do not make this a simple problem, which is why it is taking some time. The Government are seized of the need to address this with urgency.

My Lords, the last exchange referred to the specific circumstances that gave rise to the urgent review. In conducting that review, will the Minister accept that important legal and constitutional issues arise, particularly given the serious nature of the offences involved? Given the statement last July by the Justice Secretary on the relationship between the Attorney-General and, inter alia, the Director of Public Prosecutions, guaranteeing prosecutorial independence, does he not think that there is, at the very least, an argument for reform in the opposite direction—namely, that charging decisions in such cases should move from the Attorney-General to the DPP? Can the Minister offer any reassurance that such a change will be considered? Does he agree that it is always better to consider law reform on the basis of principle rather than as an ad hoc response to a particular case, however sensitive?

My Lords, without getting into the generality of that question, let me say that my understanding of these crimes is that they are handled by a specialist unit in the Metropolitan Police. The decision to go to charge is made by the CPS. In the present situation, the Attorney-General enters the process only on the final decision of whether to prosecute.