The Home Office raised significant concerns about Sir Keir Starmer's decision-making during his tenure as Director of Public Prosecutions, according to newly uncovered documents from 2013.
Then-Home Office minister Karen Bradley formally questioned why the Crown Prosecution Service, under Starmer's leadership, chose not to prosecute an individual involved in an immigration matter. The case centred on whether sufficient evidence existed to bring criminal charges.
Legal Boundaries Tested
Internal correspondence reveals the Home Office sought explanations from the CPS about their prosecutorial discretion in the sensitive immigration case. The exchange highlights the delicate balance between political oversight and independent legal decision-making in the UK's constitutional framework.
Sir Keir, now Labour leader and potential future prime minister, defended the CPS's position at the time, emphasising that prosecutorial decisions must be based solely on legal merits and evidential standards rather than political considerations.
Constitutional Questions Emerge
This revelation raises important questions about the relationship between government departments and independent prosecution services. Legal experts suggest such interventions, while not uncommon, test the boundaries of proper constitutional conduct.
The case emerges as Sir Keir positions himself for a potential general election victory, with his record as DPP likely to face continued scrutiny from political opponents and media alike.
Both the Home Office and Labour Party have been approached for comment regarding the historical exchange and its implications for understanding Starmer's approach to legal and immigration matters.
