HL Deb 10 December 1981 vol 425 cc1435-6

3.12 p.m.

Lord Vernon

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total cost to public funds of the recent prosecution of Dr. Leonard Arthur at Leicester Crown Court.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the legal costs of prosecuting counsel and witnesses were £15,985. The remaining costs have not yet been taxed. The overhead costs (court time, heating and lighting and so on) are not separately ascertainable. Jurors' expenses must also be added.

Lord Vernon

My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that very many people throughout the country deplore the fact that this prosecution for murder of a Down's syndrome baby—later the charge was changed to attempted murder—was ever brought in the first place? Does he not think that in these admittedly very delicate and difficult cases it is better to leave the decision to the discretion of the medical profession, who have over the years exercised that discretion with both humanity and good sense?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I think the noble Lord has momentarily forgotten that oral Questions in this House are for Her Majesty's Government and that Her Majesty's Government are not responsible to this House for the prosecution of offences. Ever since the Campbell case, when my father was shadow Attorney-General, it has been established that the Attorney-General occupies an independent position in this respect.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that the whole question of prosecution and who should be the decider as to who should prosecute in criminal offences ought to have the attention of Her Majesty's Government?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, this case related to a particular instance and that Question does not arise out of that instance.

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in relation to a matter pertaining to the administration of English criminal justice, but may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he thinks it is conceivable that any sensible English jury properly directed by the presiding judge could have returned a verdict of guilty of murder or guilty of attempted murder against the doctor in question? If he thinks that is conceivable, would he agree that perhaps there is something wrong with the English law pertaining to murder? If, on the other hand, he thinks it inconceivable that any sensible English jury properly directed could return such a verdict, does he agree that some public recognition should be given to the doctor concerned that the person who made the decision to prosecute was guilty of a serious error of judgment?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, that is an attempt to make me express an opinion upon the particular case, in which I neither heard the evidence nor the arguments, and I would not be prepared to do so. But even if I were, it is not a proper question to address to Her Majesty's Government, for whom I am answering this afternoon.

Lord Vernon

My Lords, I wonder whether I could put a final supplementary to the noble and learned Lord. Dr. Arthur was sent for trial on 4th April this year and the case did not come up until the middle of October. Does the noble and learned Lord not think that this puts a quite intolerable strain not only on innocent defendants but on their families, and could not something be done to speed up the administration of justice?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I have repeatedly said, in both my terms of office, that I am particularly concerned by the delay between committal and arraignment. I managed to divide it by two in my first term of office, and there are some encouraging signs now. But I should not like to intervene in individual cases.