HC Deb 04 March 1921 vol 138 cc2211-20

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the salaries of the Law Officers' Department; the salaries and expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General, and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; for the costs of prosecutions, of other legal proceedings, and of Parliamentary agency.

Major ENTWISTLE

There are one or two questions which I should like to ask on this Vote. In regard to the first item there is an additional sum required because of the increase in the number of important prosecutions. I should like to know the reason why these prosecutions have increased. I presume it is an increase in the number of prosecutions in which one of the Law Officers of the Crown has been engaged. It would be interesting to know what is the test of the kind of case in which a Law Officer is engaged. It may be said that the number of serious crimes have increased during the last year. When the murderer Holt was charged in connection with what was known as the Sandhills tragedy, the Attorney-General went to the Manchester Assizes to conduct the prosecution, and it struck me as rather extraordinary that an important personage like the Attorney-General, who has such important functions to perform in this House and in other matters, should have thought it necessary to go to Manchester to conduct that prosecution. I presume the result was additional expense to the State. I do not know what cost to the State was involved by the Attorney-General's appearance there, but there would be a leader under him, and, in addition, there would be a junior. The facts of the case were simple; there was no important point of law involved, and if ever there was a case which was perfectly clear and which would cause no difficulty that case struck me as pre-eminently one of them, and the King's counsel who was junior to the Attorney-General in the case was amply competent to conduct the prosecution. I do not know what principle governs these cases. Take the Greenwood poison trial. The Attorney-General did not appear for the prosecution in that case, and yet to the average man that case would appear to have been one of very much greater difficulty and complexity than the charge against the murderer Holt. What principle governs the selection of the type of criminal case in which the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General appears? There are a great number of cases in which the Attorney-General appears where it is not necessary, and the expense of the State is thereby increased, because he would not appear in a case without having another leader with him.

In connection with the next item due to the intervention of the Procurator-General (the King's Proctor) in divorce cases, I find that the estimate is due to the increased inquiries into undefended cases. That is due to the increased number of cases in which the King's Proctor has intervened. A Bill passed through all its stages in the House of Lords to increase the grounds on which divorce should be granted—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now going on to discuss legislation. We are only concerned now with a Supplementary Estimate.

Major ENTWISTLE

I was not discussing legislation, but only using it as an illustration of increased expenditure being incurred by the unnecessary intervention of the King's Proctor in cases under the existing legislation, against the feeling of the country. The King's Proctor should not unnecessarily interfere in cases against the public feeling in the country. As evidence of that we have had a Bill which has passed through the House of Lords and we have had a Motion which did not go through the House of Commons, but which met with a considerable measure of support, and I submit that the country does not view with favour the unnecessary interference of the King's Proctor. In a great many cases he interferes on grounds of the highest technicality against the whole wishes of the country. Where a marriage is one which has proved an absolute failure and the parties have got a divorce, I cannot see any cause on grounds of public policy for these irritating and unnecessary interferences of the King's Proctor. He interfered quite enough before, and I object to have to find an additional sum of £9,500 in order to meet the expenses of that official's increased activities, when the whole of our influence in the House ought to be exercised towards reducing his activities. We ought to have very strong reasons advanced for this increased activity before we pass this Vote.

Mr. MOSLEY

In view of the remarkable increase in the expense of this Department, I trust that we may have some explanation from the Solicitor-General. Under Item B, for instance, we find that in 1919–20 the sum of £20,000 was allocated for criminal proceedings and quasi criminal proceedings, and in the Estimate for 1920–21 there is a sum of £26,500. In the original Estimate for this year there was an increase of £6,500, and in the Supplementary Estimate there is an additional increase to the amount of £6,000, so that the total increase over last year is £12,500. A detailed explanation is demanded by such figures and I trust that we may have it. With regard to Item F, "Intervention by the King's Proctor in divorce cases," I would like to know in exactly how many cases has the King's Proctor seen fit to intervene so as to cause this increase of expenditure, and in how many eases has he intervened with success?

Mr. CAUTLEY

Though only £10 is asked for, the real increase is £16,000, but Appropriations-in-Aid amount to £15,990. When I look for details I see the explanation that in a number of cases larger county allowances are being received than were anticipated. Does that mean that we are transferring from the national taxation to the rates or local authorities the costs of these prosecutions? If so, why should that be so? As regards the second part of the explanation—that the costs in Prize cases have exceeded expectations and also the costs from Crown nominees' estates"— is the whole £15,900 made up of costs received, or is it some part, and, if so, what part?

Mr. ACLAND

I assume that we shall have some explanation of Sub-head K— Expenses of the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Criminal Appeal Act. To whom is the extra sum of £500 really paid, because what is stated in the Paper, unless one happens to know the case of Crane and the Director of Public Prosecutions, does not explain itself. Then I would like an explanation of what these county allowances really are? Do they come from county courts, or a charge on the rates, or what? Are they only an additional burden placed on the ratepayer or the taxpayer which is being brought in to provide Appropriations-in-Aid?

Lieut. - Commander WILLIAMS

I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain what is meant by Prize Cases. I would like an explanation of the technical position, as I am not quite certain what these cases are.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin)

I will do my best to answer the points which have been raised. I took the precaution of securing the assistance of the Solicitor-General (Sir E. Pollock) in case there should be any legal points with which I might not be able to deal. In reference to Subheads B and F, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) asked for some figures showing the increase of work that has been done owing to divorce cases, and they will be of considerable interest, to the Committee. Although in the view of one of my hon. Friends (Major Entwistle), it would be a good thing if the Government took no notice of these private suits, and left people to go their own sweet way in anticipation of legislation which has not yet been passed, the view of the Government is that as long as the present law exists, we should do our1 best to prevent collusion, which undoubtedly occurs. As long as human nature remains unchanged, whatever the law may be, attempts at collusion will be made, so that in some degree we may always look for these charges. The bulk of the increased charge under B is directly attributable to the great increase in the divorce cases, because in so many cases the evidence that has been discovered on intervention leads to prosecutions for perjury and, I may add, a very regrettable circumstance, there has also been a marked increase this year in the cases of prosecution for abortion. Those two causes form a very great deal of the increase under B, and, of course, the divorce cases account entirely for the increase under F.

In 1915–16 there were 962 inquiries in divorce cases held by the King's Proctor, and 36 cases of intervention. In 1918–19 there were 1,721 inquiries, and 41 interventions; in 1919–20, the last year for which there are complete figures, there were 3,051 inquiries, and 68 interventions; and I am advised that during the current year such increases still continue. I would remind the Committee that these inquiries which are held undoubtedly have a deterrent effect, but whatever deterrent effect they may have, the figures go on increasing, which shows that for the time being, and I hope that it may be only temporary, we really have an alarming increase in this type of case. The Attorney-General, in the course of the present year, appeared in two cases only, and my learned Friend the Solicitor-General in nine. When a Law Officer appears in a case, he exercises his own judgment as to the importance of the case, and he does it after consideration with the Director of Public Prosecutions. With regard to Appropriations-in-Aid, if my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cautley) does not know it, I may tell him that county allowances are dependent on an Act of Parliament of 1908, on which the learned Solicitor-General is better able to advise the House than I. The costs in the Prize cases have exceeded what we anticipated, and I think that that has been owing largely to the success of my learned Friend the Solicitor-General in the Courts. Doubtless he will say something about that.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the Prize cases?

Mr. BALDWIN

That is part of my learned Friend's work. I always feel that in this matter of examining Estimates my mind runs very much on all fours with that of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland). When I saw a reference to the case of Crane versus The Director of Public Prosecutions, I at once asked for information on the subject. I am not a lawyer, but I can give my right hon. Friend the information supplied to me, and I hope he will understand it. If there is any point not quite clear to hon. Members I shall be only too pleased if they will address a question to my learned Friend. The case mentioned is an appeal by Crane from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal to the House of Lords, brought at the fiat of the Attorney-General, on the ground that the point involved was a principle of importance. It is a trial where a thief and a receiver, although indicted separately, were tried together, and the trial was therefore a mere nullity and of no effect. The Court of Criminal Appeal under the Act has no power to order a new trial. The question is whether, when the trial has been ab initio void, the Court can send the case back for further trial, or whether an order to do this is ultra vires, as being equivalent to an order for a new trial.

Captain BOWYER

Why is it that in 1915–16 there were 36 interventions out of 962 inquiries, whereas for the last year for which figures are available there were only 68 interventions, and the inquiries had gone up to 3,051? It appears to me that if there are so few interventions, the vast majority of the inquiries must be pure waste of money. Will the Government see that in future inquiries are made only when there is some primâ facie case made out, or some circumstances of suspicion, or some likelihood that intervention by the King's Proctor will be made?

Mr. KILEY

I wish to emphasise the point made by the last speaker. Although there have been 3,000 inquiries and in 68 cases there has been intervention, it does not follow that even in those 68 cases there was any justification for intervention. Assuming there is justification, does it not suggest that a little more care exercised might reduce the number of 3,000 to reasonable proportions. If there is free play for those concerned to set going as many inquiries as they like and the net result of all their work is only 68 interventions, it suggests that there might be room for a reduction of the number and a saving of expenditure.

Captain Viscount CURZON

In order to elucidate the point as to the inquiries, will the learned Solicitor-General state roughly the number of inquiries which have been successful, and can he also give us the figures for the corresponding years of the numbers of divorce cases?

Mr. MOSLEY

I would like to endorse the comments made on the remarkable figures given to the Committee. It would appear that, in cases where inquiries have been made, in not 2 per cent, of those cases has any action been taken by the King's Proctor. Would the learned Solicitor-General also give detailed information as to Item B, which shows an increase of £12,500 over the Estimate for 1919–20?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock)

I am very glad to reply as far as possible to the questions, which are all very reasonable questions. As to inquiries made by the King's Proctor into divorce cases and his intervention. In order to get a divorce, the parties must, come into Court with clean hands. It is not every person who is entitled to a divorce if he himself has been guilty of a breach of his conjugal contract. Under the law as it stands, if there were no inquiries made at all, there would be an opportunity of collusive divorce being obtained contrary to law. This is a matter in which detailed experience is not common to every Member of the House. The practice which has prevailed for a very long time indeed is this—that in the undefended divorce cases, of which there is a very great number now, inquiries are always set on foot by the King's Proctor to see whether or not it is a case of collusive divorce. In the very large number of undefended divorce cases amounting to 3,051 in the present year, it was necessary to make the same inquiries that have always been made, I was going to say, for a generation or more, into these cases, and that has a very important reflex deterrent effect against persons going into Court and endeavouring to obtain a decree nisi by false or collusive evidence. In the C8 cases of intervention, I think in every case the intervention was successful; that is to say, the King's Proctor intervened and found that he had good grounds for saying to the Court that although a decree nisi had been made, there were sufficient grounds for asking the Court to withhold the decree absolute, and without the inquiries by the King's Proctor it would have been impossible to have taken that action.

The, inquiries may be carried further in some cases than in others, but it is necessary to make some inquiries in all cases. If they appear to be doubtful, further in- quiries are made, and, if necessary, intervention follows. I am sure the Committee will feel that the discretion of the King's Proctor has been rightly exercised when I say, as I have said before, that all these 68 interventions were upheld by the Court. The next question put by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) was one which it would take more than the afternoon and next week to answer, because he asked a question relating to the whole of the prosecutions in all Courts throughout the country, and that includes Assizes in all counties, and so on. Perhaps he will not be surprised at my candour if I say that I am not able at the moment to answer such a searching inquiry. It would certainly have to be a matter of very careful, expensive, and laborious returns if we were to get all the information, but if the hon. Member likes to ask me privately something more which I can explain from such experience as I have, I shall be delighted to help him.

Mr. MOSLEY

Surely when there is an increase in the Estimate of this year over that of last year amounting to £12,500 for criminal prosecutions we can have some explanation before we pass this sum?

Sir E. POLLOCK

My observations are really supplementary to those of my right hon. Friend, who has already said that there has been a very largely increased number of prosecutions, particularly of cases of perjury and abortion, and, of course, it is quite impossible to form an estimate beforehand as to how many prosecutions there will be of a particular type.

3.0 P.M.

Mr. KILEY

I am not at all satisfied an to the precautions exercised in regard to the inquiries set on foot by the King's Proctor. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what supervision is exercised over the number of cases in which inquiries are made? When you have a Department with power to spend money, it is easy enough for them to find work. Are there not any cases where, on the evidence which is submitted to the King's Proctor, it is unnecessary to have further inquiries made by sending a number of officials all over the country for the purpose? I should like an assurance that some care is exercised in this matter.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I thought I had said that, in the case of the undefended divorce cases, in every case it is the duty of the King's Proctor to take the evidence into consideration, and when he has considered the evidence, and so on, it is his duty to decide whether or not it is a case in which he ought to take further steps, and if according to his discretion he thinks it a fit and proper case for further inquiries, then he will make such inquiries as he thinks right. The hon. Member need not be afraid that hordes of officials will go touring round the country in order to find work for themselves, because that is not the case. This is a judicial officer charged by law with the duty, in all cases of undefended divorces, of making such inquiries as in his discretion he thinks right. He is a very responsible and high officer, and I think the Committee may have every confidence in the exercise of his discretion in this matter.

Major ENTWISTLE

Is it a statutory obligation to make inquiry into every undefended divorce case?

Sir E. POLLOCK

The Judge who grants the decree nisi, in all cases sends the papers to the King's Proctor for the purpose of his exercising his discretion. In regard to the Prize Court, this is a Court set up at the commencement of a war for the purpose of dealing with the ships and cargoes—cargoes in particular—which have been intercepted as being contraband goods on their way to the enemy. During the War we had a very elaborate system of what was called generally the blockade, for the purpose of stopping goods, the ultimate destination of which was the enemy countries at war with this country. That system was extraordinarily successful. We have got condemnation of a vast quantity of contraband goods. A very large sum thereby has been paid into what is called the Prize Fund, and will ultimately be distributed, according to the practice, in His Majesty's Navy. This figure of the cost here does not really represent the true conditions of things, because in most cases condemnation against a neutral shipper or owner is condemned with costs, and he has to pay them. Owing to the system on which the account is made up, I do not think in this case that any credit is taken for the costs which are recovered from the person against whom the order of condemnation is made, and, therefore, in the Prize Court, as indeed in every Court, there is often a very large sum to be taken as a credit against the actual outlay which is asked in the Vote, because in the Prize Court and other Courts, when the unsuccessful party is condemned, he pays the costs.

The actual work of the Prize Court is now nearing its completion. It was hoped it might be possible to finish it in the course of this Term, but I know, as a matter of fact, that that will not be possible. But, speaking generally, the success of the Prize Court, or, in other words, the discretion with which proper cases have been brought before it, has been somewhat remarkable, and the number of cases in which condemnations have been obtained has been very large. These are the cases with which the Prize Court has had to deal. The amount of goods dealt with has been very large indeed, but no doubt the system was of great use during the War.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS

Why is it that in some cases you can put the costs of the proceedings in these Prize Courts on the enemy firm, and in other cases, apparently, you take it out—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

This is getting too technical. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is dealing with the procedure of the Law Courts now.