Mr. THOMAS(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the wide dissatisfaction amongst the public with the action taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with the case of the four National 191 Fascisti who admitted taking possession by force of a "Daily Herald" motor van, and further with damaging the van; and whether, in view of the serious danger that such action may destroy public confidence in the impartial administration of justice, he can give the House any explanation regarding the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this case?
§ The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg)My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to reply. I am aware that in certain quarters dissatisfaction has been expressed at the action taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with the case of the four National Fascisti in regard to their action on the 17th October last in taking possession of a "Daily Herald" van and its contents, to which damage was caused. The evidence as reported by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions was, in his opinion, clearly insufficient to support the charge of larceny preferred against the men, and I am satisfied that he was right in that view. In these circumstances, it would have been highly improper and oppressive to have persisted in the prosecution. But it was obviously undesirable that no steps should be taken against the perpetrators of this outrage, and accordingly one of the four men who was found to be in possession of a revolver without a licence was charged with that offence and convicted and fined £20, or one month's imprisonment. In addition, on the 31st October, after the Public Prosecutor had decided that the charge of larceny was not sustainable, an information was preferred against all four by him. following the precedent established over 12 years ago in the case of Lansbuvy r. Riley, and summonses were issued returnable on the 3rd November, and on these each of the four men was bound over in a surety of £100 to be of good behaviour for 12 months, or in default to be imprisoned for six months. The defendant who was fined £20 for the offence against the Firearms Act could neither pay his fine nor find a surety, and is now in Wandsworth Prison.
Mr. THOMASIt is impossible to deal by question and answer with the issues raised by my right hon. Friend, and I beg 192 to give notice that the necessary steps will be taken to obtain time for a Debate through the usual channels.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask the Attorney-General to tell me what the circumstances were; I do not remember them.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALThe hon. Gentleman's name—I do not say it was the hon. Gentleman—appears in the case of Lansbury against Riley, which was heard in the King's Bench Division on Monday, the 28th July, 1913.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI do not think it was me.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALThe hon. Gentleman will do me the justice of saying that in quoting the case I did not say he was the person. The person named in that case was George Lansbury, of 35, Atherstone Road, Bow.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWill you allow me to make a personal explanation? It happens not to be the name of the person who lived in that house at Atherstone Road, and it happens that it is not me, because I never lived there, and if that is a legal record, I beg to inform the Attorney-General that it is quite inaccurate, and not true. No person of the name of George Lansbury lived at 35, Atherstone Road at that time. [Interruption.] I happen to know, and you do not, and he does not, and that record is wrong.
§ Captain GEEMay I ask the Attorney-General if he can give an unqualified statement that no political pressure was brought to bear upon the Public Prosecutor in the action he took?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI am very glad to answer that question. No political pressure or other pressure of any kind whatever was brought to bear on the Public Prosecutor in the action he took.
Captain BENNWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Public Prosecutor consulted any Member of the Government before deciding to withdraw the charge?
§ The ATTORNEY - GENERALThe answer is this: Before proceeding to withdraw the charge, the Public Prosecutor did not consult any Member of the Government The only Member of the 193 Government who even knew what was going to happen was myself. I only knew it the day before the actual appearance in Court which was, I think, two or three days after notice was given to the magistrate's clerk. The Public Prosecutor was seeing me about another matter. I had some days previously had some discussion with him in giving leave to apply for the issue of a search warrant in order to raid the Fascisti premises. The Public Prosecutor thought I would be interested to know what was going to happen, and he told me the course it was proposed to take the next day.
Captain BENNWould it be right to assume that when the Public Prosecutor made his speech in Court he did so after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman?
§ HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI am sorry if I have not made it clear. There was no consultation with mo. I was told the day before the statement was made in Court—I do not think it was said by the Public Prosecutor but by his subordinate—that the prosecution could not go on because there was no case. I expressed my regret that nothing could be found to be done against the Fascisti, because I thought it very desirable that any proper steps should be taken. The Public Prosecutor told me that he had found a case, Lansbury versus Riley, which we now know is not the name for the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, but another gentleman of the same name.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIt is not true!
§ Mr. DALTONKeep to the point, and don't try to be funny.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALOn being told that, I said I was very glad to hear that he had found there was some way of dealing with the matter.
Mr. THOMASMight I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the circumstances of talking to the Public Prosecutor which he has now described— he did not attempt to influence him—are not somewhat identical with what happened 12 months ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI am very glad to have the opportunity of 194 answering that. So far from being identical, they are exactly the contrary. In the case to which my right hon. Friend refers, as I understand it, instructions were given by the Attorney-General, at the instance of the Cabinet, to the Public Prosecutor. In the case which I have dealt with no instructions were given by anyone: the Public Prosecutor was taking certain steps in the ordinary course of his duty, and he informed me of the steps he had decided to take, I think, 24 hours before he actually took them.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think hon. Members are anticipating the Debate of which notice has been given.