HC Deb 03 June 1924 vol 174 cc1056-7

asked the Secretary for Scotland, if he is aware that information was lodged with the police of an alleged assault by a colliery official on an engineer employed at the Leven colliery, Fifeshire, some months ago; that reliable witnesses have supplied statements of evidence in writing to the authorities and that the local burgh prosecutor has refused to prosecute; and if he is satisfied that, in the case in question, the complaint should not have been heard in Court in the usual way?


The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The matter is, however, not one in which the Secretary for Scotland has any power to intervene, and my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, to whose notice the case was recently brought, was satisfied, after inquiry and consideration, that he would not have been justified in ordering a prosecution.


Are we to understand that if a colliery official assaults an employé and the burgh prosecutor refuses to prosecute, there is no remedy so far as that assaulted person is concerned?


No. We are not to understand that that is so, but the authority lies with the Lord Advocate, and he does not consider, as I have said already, that the evidence that was submitted to him warranted a prosecution.


Are we to understand that, owing to the Lord Advocate's absence from this House, we are to have no control over the actions of the Lord Advocate?


No, you are not so to understand.