§ MR. HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)asked the Secretary of 1743 State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the case of Police Constable George Russell, of the W Division, Metropolitan Police, who has twice stood his trial for alleged perjury, the jury in the first case failing to agree, and in the second acquitting the defendant; and if, under such circumstances, the full costs incurred by the constable in defending himself against a charge declared by the learned Recorder to leave no stain on the defendant's character, and to have been supported by more falsehoods than he had ever heard told about the same thing in all his experience of 31 years, will be repaid, and the Director of Public Prosecutions instructed to consider the institution of proceedings against the false witnesses; and, if the decision in the case of P.C. Russell will govern that in the case of P.C. Hester, who was indicted in connection with the same circumstances, but against whom no evidence was tendered?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)Yes, Sir; Police Constable Russell is, in my opinion, fully entitled to the benefit of the Rule that a public officer should be relieved of costs, when the result of his trial is to clear him of charges pressed against him in consequence of his action in the performance of his duties. The case of Police Constable Hester, who was indicted in connection with the same circumstances, but against whom no evidence was tendered, will be governed by the same Rule. I am advised that the success of proceedings for perjury against any of the witnesses would be doubtful. I do not, therefore, intend to instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute any such proceedings.