§ Captain CLIVEasked the Attorney-General whether it is now too late for the Public Prosecutor to intervene, as the result of the judge's finding, in the case of Docket v. various defendants, tried at the Leominster County Court, on the 13th June, 1910; at what date it became too late; at what date his own attention was first called to the case; and at what date the Public Prosecutor's attention was first drawn to it?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSMy attention was first called to this case by the hon. and gallant Member on June 17th, 1910, and on the same day I communicated with the Director of Public Prosecutions, who informed me, first, that the judgment had not been delivered, and, later, that 2209 leave to appeal had been given to the plaintiff, who thereupon gave notice of appeal to the High Court. It appears, from the full inquiry made by the Director of Public Prosecutions in consequence of the question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member, that of the six claims dealt with in the county court on June 13th, 1910, four related to transactions dating from 5th July, 1907, to 17th March, 1909. Assuming these to have been of a corrupt character, of which it is only fair to say that the evidence was very unsatisfactory, no prosecution could have been instituted, inasmuch as by the Corrupt Practices Act proceedings must be commenced within twelve months of the commission of the alleged offence, and, as appears from the dates given, more than that period had expired before the trial in the county court. With reference to the two remaining claims there is no ground for a prosecution on the facts disclosed. One was for a loan of 7s. 6d., of which 2s. 6d. was repaid in October of 1909, whilst the other was a loan to a person, which was not either in 1909 or 1910.