§ MR. HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why, although 40 Metropolitan Police constables out of 44 against whom charges having been preferred during the past 12 months of excess of duty have been acquitted, 10 only have been assisted in their defence from public funds; and why the Rule, that the cost of meeting unfounded charges arising out of official duty should be recouped, was suspended in the case of the remaining 30; and, if, having regard to the disastrous consequences frequently resulting from even a false criminal accusation, in the default of legal power for a defendant to recover costs from a prosecutor unable to substantiate his charge, and certified by the presiding Judge or magistrate to have acted upon insufficient grounds, be will consider the adjustment of the 1210 Criminal Law in this particular to the liability of an unsuccessful plaintiff in a civil suit?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)The Rule was not suspended in the case of the 30 constables referred to; but these were either cases of so simple a nature that there seemed to be no necessity for the employment of a professional advocate, or they were cases in which the charge did not arise out of the performance of police duty. In one or two cases special circumstances existed which demanded special consideration. I have consulted the Lord Chancellor as to the latter paragraph of the Question; and he is of opinion that the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings is so marked that the Government are unable to hold out any hope that they will undertake legislation of the kind suggested.