R (Evans and Another) v Director of Serious Fraud Office
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY,MR JUSTICE PITCHERS |
| Judgment Date | 23 October 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 2304 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/4541/2002 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 23 October 2002 |
[2002] EWHC 2304 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Lord Justice Kennedy
Mr Justice Pitchers
CO/4541/2002
MR D PERRY (instructed by Cooper Kenyon Burrows) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANTS
MR K QURESHI (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Wednesday, 23rd October 2002
This is an application to apply for permission to seek judicial review of two decisions of the respondent: first, a decision of 13th September 2002 to issue notices under section 2(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 requiring the claimants to answer questions and provide information in connection with a criminal investigation in the United States; and, secondly, a decision of 27th September 2002 refusing to disclose to the claimants' solicitors the letter of request which the Secretary of State had received from the United States authorities.
For reasons I will explain, we grant permission only in relation to the second decision and, having heard all relevant submissions, I propose to deal with that application for judicial review substantively in the course of this judgment.
The claimants are a chartered accountant and a senior managing clerk. They practice as members of the firm of Hargreaves, Brown and Benson at Colne in Lancashire. An investigation is taking place in New York State into the activities of a man named Stanley Tollman and others, and in particular in relation to the Travel Corporation Ltd and its parent and subsidiary companies. What is under investigation is said to be a serious or complex fraud, and a prosecution has now been launched. It is in that context that on 11th September 2002 the United States Department of Justice sought from the Secretary of State the assistance of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to obtain evidence and information from the claimants. It is not suggested that the claimants are themselves under suspicion, but the obvious inference is that, in a professional capacity, they had dealings with either the individuals or the companies which dealings are of interest to the authorities in the United States. The matter is of some urgency because if information can be acquired, it is intended to lay it before a grand jury this month or early next month in accordance with a timetable set by the District Judge in the United States.
Two issues are raised by the claimants in these proceedings, first, whether they or their solicitors are entitled to see the letter of request so as to satisfy themselves that the information requested by and provided to the Serious Fraud Office is properly within its terms, and, secondly, whether when the Secretary of State receives such a letter and acts upon it by requesting the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to exercise her powers under section 2 of the 1987 Act she is entitled to exercise all of those powers to the same extent as if the investigation was being conducted into criminal offences in England and Wales.
I look therefore at the first issue. On 13th September 2002 Ms Garlick of the Serious Fraud Office wrote to each of the claimants advising them of the issue of the notice under section 2 of the 1987 Act requiring their attendance to answer questions and furnish information, and giving a brief outline of the general nature of the New York investigation. The proposal was for Mr Okula, the Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to visit the claimants' offices with a representative of the Serious Fraud Office on 2nd October 2002.
On 26th September 2002 the claimants' solicitors wrote to the Serious Fraud Office seeking "a copy of the request and information that the Secretary of State has put before you from the US Department of Justice" and reasons why the Director had acceded to the request. That was answered by the Serious Fraud Office in a letter dated 27th September 2002 refusing to disclose the letter of request on the basis that it is a confidential document, but the letter went on to provide detailed information as to the American investigation based on the letter of request.
It is common ground that letters of request to the Secretary of State from the US Department of Justice are confidential documents. They are made pursuant to a 1994 treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States, article 7 of which is headed "Confidentiality and Limitations on Use" and begins thus:
"The Requested Party shall, upon request, keep confidential any information which might indicate that a request has been made or responded to. If the request cannot be executed without breaching confidentiality, the Requested Party shall so inform the Requesting Party which shall then determine the extent to which it wishes the request to be executed."
Such a provision is, we understand, common in treaties dealing with mutual legal assistance.
But Mr Perry, for the claimants, contends that the letter of request should be revealed, first, so that the claimants can obtain legal advice as to whether the notice under section 2 of 1987 Act has been properly given, and, second, so as to enable the claimants to be sure that the material sought falls within the scope of the letter of request. To some extent, he submits, the obligation as to confidentiality imposed by the treaty must yield, and if the requesting state will not waive its right to maintain confidentiality, then the court should prevent action from being taken by the Serious Fraud Office.
Mr Qureshi, for the respondent, accepts that there may be circumstances in which it would be appropriate to disclose a letter of request to a suspect in a redacted form, assuming that the requesting state agreed to that course, but that could only be where the person against whom the section 2 notice was directed could point to some risk of injustice if disclosure, or at least partial disclosure, did not take place, for example, if it was asserted that the proceedings or the investigation in the foreign state were being conducted in bad faith, as happened in the case of Zardari, decided by this court on 11th March 1998, and no such assertion, it is pointed out, is made in the present case, where of course the claimants are not suspects and have been told all they need to know.
In Zardari the court was concerned with costs. In October 1997 the Government of Pakistan had made a request for mutual legal assistance in relation to criminal proceedings said to be in train against Mr Zardari, who was under arrest in Pakistan. His solicitors sought disclosure of the letter of request, and when that was refused they sought to challenge the refusal by means of an application for judicial review. Because it was asserted that the criminal proceedings were not being brought in good faith, leave to move was granted and the gathering of evidence to present it at a nominated court in this country was stayed. The Government of Pakistan then indicated that it had no objection to the disclosure of the substance of the request and full disclosure was given by the Secretary of State, so that the only remaining issue was one of costs. In the end the court refused to make any order, but Lord Bingham CJ described the outcome of the application for judicial review as being "by no means a foregone conclusion one way or the other". As he pointed out, some of the suspects likely to be the subject of investigation and prosecution abroad will be powerful, rich, ruthless and sophisticated criminals, they may be very anxious to know the full contents of the letter of request which, in order to satisfy the Secretary of State in relation to the matters spelt out in section 4(2A) of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, may have to reveal matters not yet in the public domain. That subsection, so far as relevant, reads:
"… if the Secretary of State is satisfied —
(a) that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhian Lewis and Michael Ness v the Minister of Finance
...EWCA Civ. 269. 41. He relied upon the judgment of Kennedy L.J. in Evans and Lord v the Inspectors of the Serious Fraud OfficeUNK[2002] EWHC 2304 Admin., CO/4541/2002) which was concerned with notices issued by the Respondents under a power given by section 2 (2) of the Criminal Justice Act ......
-
John Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court (1st Defendant) Hertfordshire Constabulary (2nd Defendant)
...access to the court to challenge it are so fundamental that they trump other public interests, as was acknowledged in R (Evans) v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2003] EWHC 2304 (Admin), [2003] 1 WLR 299, [7]–[8], [12] (although a letter of request was confidential under a Mutual Le......
-
R (on the application of River East Supplies Ltd) v The Crown Court at Nottingham Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police and Another (Interested Parties)
...to exercise their best endeavours to keep the request and its contents confidential. 20 In R (Evans) v. Director of the SFO and others [2003] 1 WLR 299, the claimant had written to the respondent asking for a copy of the Letter of Request. The respondent had refused relying on article 7 of......
-
ZXC v Bloomberg L.P.
...disclosure to third parties is made.”… [39] The courts have upheld claims to confidentiality in this area… [40] In R (Evans) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2003] 1 WLR 299, the US authorities sent a letter of request to the Secretary of State for mutual assistance in the investiga......
-
TIEAs - A Modern Day Scylla And Charybdis?
...or a summary of its contents. We agree with the approach of the [Divisional Court] in [R (Evans) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2003] 1 WLR 299] that the interests of justice can usually be met if, when a request is made for disclosure of a letter of request, information is given a......