§ 62. Sir H. CRAIKasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his legal advisers have now concluded their consideration of the circumstances revealed in the case of Squire v. Keele; and whether they have advised the institution of criminal proceedings against those implicated in the transactions therein disclosed?
§ Mr. FORSTERThe Director of Public Prosecutions has been consulted in this case, and I am informed that he concurs in the findings of fact by Mr. Justice Horridge upon the evidence given at the civil trial—that on the 4th August, 1914, the date of the first arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant company, the plaintiff was not in the service of the War Office, and that as to any new or altered arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant company made in September, 1914, the plaintiff's duties to the War Office were not connected with the sales in respect of which the new or altered arrangement was made. On these grounds the Director of Public Prosecutions does not propose to take any further action in the matter.
§ Sir H. CRAIKWould it not be possible to proceed against the man who was in the employ, whether in one capacity or another, of the War Office, and yet received commissions which the judge stated at the trial amounted to many thousands of pounds?
§ Mr. FORSTEROf course I am bound to take the opinion of those who are responsible for tendering legal advice. It is not for me as a layman to say whether or not such proposed action would have any chance of success.