cp149 Consents to Prosecution consultation - Law Commission

violence against foreign governments led to the inclusion of an Attorney-General
consent provision as a safeguard. One Member of Parliament, 246
speaking in
support of the consent provision, justified it as follows:
[T]he political delicacy of many of the decisions that had to be made,
meant that the Crown Prosecution Service was not equipped for the
task, however skilled it was in its work. Frequently, the decisions that
need to be taken are well outside its domain; they entail an in-depth
investigation of overseas law and a sensitive appraisal of the effect on
race relations in this country – another matter for which the CPS is
not equipped, but on which the Government, with their wider
responsibilities, are well equipped to decide. 247
CONCLUSION
1.17 In this Part we have set out the standard justification for consent provisions being
included in particular offences. In the next Part we shall look at the criticisms of
the consent regime, both in principle and in practice. The brief descriptions given
at the beginning of this Part of the Attorney-General’s memorandum to the Select
Committee on Obscene Publications and the Home Office memorandum to the
Franks Committee give the impression that the consent regime is underpinned by
a foundation of coherent principle; we shall see, however, that, of the criticisms of
the regime, not least is that the appearance of coherent principle belies the reality
of a system which is in fact “full of anomalies and even absurdities”. 248
We shall
also see that there are those who, far from regarding the Attorney-General’s
experience and knowledge as an advantage, are critical that a member of the
executive should have the quasi-judicial power to circumscribe the right to
institute a private prosecution.
246 Donald Anderson MP.
247 Hansard (HC) 11 February 1997, Standing Committee E, col 6.
248 Report of the Select Committee on Obscene Publications, 1958, HC 123–1, App 1, p 23,
para 2.
40