§ 3.23 p.m.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will institute an inquiry into the circumstances under which Guenter Fritz Podola, who was apparently uninjured when arrested on July 16, sustained such injuries in custody, that, when he appeared at West London Court on July 20, his face was severely contused with the cheek blackened and with deep blue 450 patches tinged with red for two inches below the eye, and his general condition such that he had to be held up when seated, and, when walking, supported by two officers, dragged his feet slowly.]
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, on a point of Order, I wish to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether, in view of the Question put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, we are all aware that the matter is sub judice and therefore improper to put it to your Lordships' House?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, while I may have an opinion on this matter I would rather the House heard the view of the Lord Chancellor.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)My Lords, the position, as I see it, is as follows. The Home Secretary has denied categorically that Podola was beaten up in the police station. It follows that such injuries as he may have suffered were sustained at the time of his arrest, about the circumstances of which evidence is likely to be given in court. When a man is charged with a serious offence like murder it is of particular importance that no statement or comment should be made about any matters which might possibly be at issue at the trial; and this case is now before the courts. That has always been the custom of your Lordships' House, and I hope that we shall abide by it now. For me to say any more than has been said by my right honourable friend in another place would be entirely improper, and I do not propose to add anything to what he has said.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, my sole concern in raising this question was what was, in my view, the interests of British justice, and to try to clear up a matter of serious public concern. May I submit to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that there is nothing whatever in the content of my Question to connect it with a crime which has shocked the whole nation—nothing whatever. If this man has been assaulted no one has been charged with the assault, and I cannot therefore see how it can be sub judice. Further, as the noble and learned Viscount said, the Home Secretary has declared that the man was not beaten 451 up in the police station; therefore the very serious injuries, from which he was not suffering when he was arrested, judging from photographs, must have been inflicted in the meantime. If they were not inflicted by third parties they must have been either self-inflicted or as a result of accident. Would it not be in the interests of justice and help allay public concern if a declaration to that effect were made?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I said, I think quite clearly, but I want to make it absolutely clear (if the noble Lord wishes to check the points he will find it at the top of column 877 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of another place for Monday, July 20, and as it was a Ministerial statement I can refer to it), that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary denied categorically that Podola was beaten up in the police station. As I said, it follows that such injuries as he may have suffered were sustained at the time of his arrest. Now what happened at the time of his arrest, and the circumstances of his arrest, are matters on which evidence is likely to be given in court; and it is because evidence is likely to be given in court, and it is a matter which is going to be dealt with in a court of law, that I said it would be most improper for this House to discuss it.
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
§ LORD SILKINWhile, of course, I accept the noble and learned Viscount's ruling, supposing Podola maintains that he was beaten up at the police station, what is his remedy? There is a dispute. He obviously cannot raise it at his trial: should there not be some opportunity for him to raise it somehow some time?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am very anxious not to be drawn by debating points from the position which I am sure is the right one.
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, knows from his experience, as it is the result of my own, that the circumstances of arrest are very likely to be raised at the trial. That is the first matter; and to discuss hypotheses as to 452 what might be done in the future, on certain views being taken of the evidence, would be to fall into exactly the danger which I very much wish your Lordships to avoid.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I was not aware, of course, before I came into the House, that this point would be raised, although I express thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for telling me in the Chamber: but I was armed with the extract from Hansard which the noble and learned Viscount has mentioned. He will be aware that Mr. Speaker referred to this as a borderline case on the question of being sub judice or not. I would repeat that my sole purpose was, as I thought, in the interests of justice, because it would seem that if there was any dubiety on this point no future credence could be placed on any alleged statement by this man as it might be made under duress or threat.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I hope that no inference of any kind will be drawn, and that the trial will be allowed to go on quite normally. I have been told—though I have not verified it from Mr. Speaker—that MR. Speaker has now refused any further questions in the matter. I heard this only just before coming into the House; my noble friend Lord Teviot raised this point ten minutes before sitting, and I have not been able to verify it. It is not, of course, in any way binding on your Lordships' House, but on the general comity between the two Houses it is a matter we treat with great respect.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, I would say that my colleagues as a whole seek nothing in this matter but the obtaining of justice, first of all, in the case of the horrible murder which was committed. Secondly, it would be a part of British justice that, if afterwards it transpired that there was evidence that there was something done by the police that was wrong, there would be ample opportunity to pursue it; and I am quite sure that neither House of Parliament would want such a course to be blocked. If something has been done which is wrong, while we cannot move now while the matter is sub judice, we shall be free to pursue it afterwards.