§ Where a person has given any information to a person appointed to inspect the books and documents of a person, firm, or company under Section two of the principal Act, the information so given may be used in evidence against him in any proceedings relating to offences of trading with the enemy within the meaning of the principal Act, notwithstanding that he only gave the information on being required so to do by the inspector, in pursuance of his powers under the said Section.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon)I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
Very few words are needed for me at this late hour to explain what this new Clause proposes, and I hope the House will be prepared to add it to the Bill without any misgivings, as soon as they see the necessity for it. In a general way we do not allow a statement that has been made in answer to an inquiry, such as under this Bill may be made by an inspector, to be used in subsequent proceedings against a person who makes a statement in order to convict him. There are exceptions to that principle. For example, in our bankruptcy law, although the bankrupt, of course, has got to answer questions in his public examination, 1465 the answers which he gives can, none the less, be used against him suposing he has committed a bankruptcy offence. Experience has shown, and that is all I have got to say about it, that when you are endeavouring to suppress trading with the enemy, and when you are dealing with persons who therefore are much disposed to conceal the real nature of their transactions, if they want to offend against this law at all, it is in some cases impossible to punish an obviously guilty man unless you are entitled to use the explanation which he has offered to the inspector who visited his premises and made inquiry. I need not say that the power to use such evidence certainly should not be exercised as a matter of course. On the other hand, no prosecution can take place under this Bill without the approval of the Attorney-General. He has to give his fiat. Of course, it is my duty to examine in detail what the case is, and I hope the House will be willing to add this Clause to the Bill, I, on my part, assuring them that I should not at all regard it as right to use such a power as a matter of course, but should only use it where the other circumstances were such as to make it plain that otherwise there would be a real miscarriage, of justice.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONOn an occasion like this one does not like to oppose any power sought by the Government, but except under such exceptional circumstances as these, I want to make it perfectly clear that it is absolutely a most monstrous proposal, and I should deeply regret to see it ever becomes part of our common law or Statute law, on any occasion except an emergency. Anything more monstrous than that an inspector should be allowed to go to a man's place of business and get any remark from any subordinate, who ever he might be and however spiteful, and use it against him without producing the servant or employé—
§ Sir J. SIMONIt is not that at all. It has nothing to do with it.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThat would be the effect of it.
§ Sir J. SIMONNot in the least.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONAny statement made to the inspector.
§ Sir J. SIMONBy the person accused, nobody else.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThe person accused?
§ Sir J. SIMONThat is all I am asking.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Where a person has given any information to a person appointed to inspect the books and documents of a person, firm, or company under Section two of the principal Act, the information so given may be used in evidence against him"—
§ Sir J. SIMONAgainst whom? "Him!"
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
in any proceedings relating to offences of trading with the enemy within the meaning of the principal Act, notwithstanding that he only gave the information on being required so to do by the inspector, in pursuance of his powers under the said section.Is it not intended to be given in evidence against a company? In nine cases out of ten the charges will be against companies. If it is not, the section certainly will not be of the value which I imagined. The effect of the section, apparently, is that on any occasion when you are prosecuting a particular man answers given by him to the inspector may be used against him. I agree that is not so bad as I anticipated the Clause to be, but as long as the Attorney-General agrees that even as it is it should not be carried further in the criminal law I do not offer any objection.
§ Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.