§ Mr. MACQUISTENI desire to speak about a matter upon which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Captain Moss) asked a question today. It may have seemed to some hon. Members that I butted in with a supplementary question, but I did not butt in. My hon. and gallant Friend asked me to take up the matter for him because he said that it was, to some extent, a legal matter. The hon. and gallant Member is a mariner and he said that he was like the captain of a ship and that when he got into legal waters he wanted a legal pilot, and he took me to guide him in this particular instance. The question asked was with regard to a practice, which has sprung up apparently quite recently, in regard to civil cases where a policeman has witnessed an accident. In any event a policeman is just a witness. Policemen are in a very good position to 1257 be witnesses because they are just like cabmen. They are on the street and see what is happening. If a policeman sees an accident naturally the injured person or his executors, as is usual in motor cases, desiring to get a reasonable account of the affair to see whether they have a possible claim for damages, go to the policeman in order to get from him a statement of what had happened. I put forward the proposition that it is the duty of every good citizen, in fact of every citizen good or bad, to give evidence of what he has seen if he is asked to do so. We may all be involved either as plaintiffs or as defendants, or, as we call them in Scotland, as pursuers, being nearer the primitive and avenging ourselves. It is the duty of everyone to bear testimony which will help to expiscate the facts in any particular case.
It has been laid down by the Home Office that before a policeman can he called, a sum of money must be paid, which varies from 5s., as I have it in a letter, for a constable to 7s. 6d. for a sergeant and so on, and I suppose that if it is a superintendent it may get to as much as a guinea. So that the poor litigant who wants to get at the facts in order to decide whether he has or has not a good case has, first of all, to pay something before he can get the evidence of, it may be, the only witness. This is contrary to the natural duty of citizens. If an ordinary citizen were to ask for a sum of money it would give a shock when that fact came out in the witness box and he would find that he was considered to be rather a discreditable witness. In those circumstances, his word could not be so readily accepted. It is different in the case of a workman losing time or expense. If you are a solicitor and write to him and say that you want his evidence, he will come up and say, "I have lost so many hours' time, and I have had to pay my omnibus and tramway fares. He quite fairly expects that to be made good to him. You are not entitled to ask him to be out of pocket. It is his duty to give evidence, and it is the solicitor's duty, if necessary, to go to a man's house in the evening and try and obtain his evidence.
1258 I suggest that no ordinary decent citizen would ask for payment as a condition of giving evidence. In the accident cases which I have in mind they nearly all are covered by insurance companies, and the more obstacles that are put in the way of claims so as to make it difficult to claim damages the better they are pleased, as is quite natural. But the whole thing is wrong. It is adding to the costs of litigation, which is one of the things of which we have most to complain. The cost of proceedings in the Law Courts is a very serious matter to the citizens. Heavy court dues are exacted, especially in Scotland. These dues are a relic of the old days when the King laid down justice and you had to square the courtiers and King's minions to get access to him. The heavy-dues are the scandal of litigation at the present moment.
Here is this further injustice upon people with small means. A constituent, in a letter which he wrote to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutherglen, states that this demand had been made upon him. The hon. and gallant Member asked me about it, and I said that it was incredible and that he had better write to the particular chief constable, and not pillory him—police constables themselves wish to do their duty—but find out if it was not the Home Office, with the clutching hand trying to get some money out of the wretched litigants. It is difficult to get the facts in accident cases. Imagine what may happen. Two constables are at a crossing. One is going off duty and the other is going on duty. A motor omnibus or a motor car comes along and kills a man, who may be the breadwinner of the family. There may be no other people about and the only competent evidence could be given by the two policemen. What is the widow to do in such a case? She is left in difficult circumstances and she requires witnesses. There are solicitors who take up cases and who are referred to as speculative solicitors. Many of these men who take up cases in order to secure justice for deserving people are entitled to the greatest possible credit. The solicitor does not know whether it is a frivolous or a good case. He will inquire whether there are any people likely to know anything about the case and who can give evidence. The 1259 first thing that he finds out is that the police could give evidence, but he is there met with the demand, "Your money for a preliminary note of my evidence." The policeman if he is subpoenaed has to give evidence, and may have conduct money. But you must know beforehand what he is going to say.
One of our Rules of Pleading, which I have always considered highly artificial, is that when you put a witness into the witness box you must treat him as a credible witness. Therefore you do not put any witness in the box until you know what he is going to say. You are not supposed to put any man in the box unless you accept his statement. On one occasion in a matrimonial court I had to bring evidence and put a question to a witness who I knew would be hostile. The judge said, "Do you put forward this lady as a credible witness?" My reply was, "No, sir, as an incredible witness, but I have to call her in order that I might put certain questions to her to enable me to examine another witness." You are expected to regard any witness you call as a credible witness, and that is one of the reasons why you cannot put the police into the box until you know what their evidence is. For wealthy people or people of position this is a small sum of money that is involved, but it is a very bad precedent. It appears to have begun as recently as 1929 with the Home Office Circular 495 055–45. It began with 5s. and it will soon rise perhaps to a guinea. These things begin by small nibbles and they go on and increase. It is entirely wrong.
It is said that this would take the policeman off duty. It would not necessarily take the policeman off duty. Hours could be fixed at such a time as would be suitable and I believe that the ordinary policeman would willingly give his proof. I have never seen an accident without stopping and tendering my name, because I do not know when someone of my own may be concerned, and I should like other citizens to act accordingly. It is the duty of everyone to do what they can in such matters. My view in regard to the police is that the average policeman is a man of high standard of conduct. He has to pass an examination which would trouble most of us and he has to have a physique of which most of us must be envious and a first-class 1260 character. I believe that the ordinary policeman looks with disdain upon this proceeding and that he regards it as a proceeding which has come from some official mind. I have no doubt that it is preferred by the insurance companies, but it is certainly an obstacle to justice being done. It is a bad, demoralising practice, and I am sorry that the Home Secretary was adamant at Question Time. I excuse his absence to-day. I told him that I was going to raise the matter and he asked me to abstain from doing so until we came back after Easter. I said that I should take no exception to his going off or to any of his representatives being absent, and that I did not expect a full answer to-day. I said also to him: "You may consult whom you may and take what advice you like, but my advice to you is that you have no answer, because the whole thing is wrong." It is an attempt to obstruct and hinder justice being done between one liege subject and another. The police give proofs or pre-cognitions freely in criminal cases. Civil cases are just as important. A civil wrong done by one man to another may be just as serious as a criminal wrong or more so. It is stated in the letter from the chief constable to the hon. Member for Rutherglen that "It is for their own advantage in civil causes." It is not for their own advantage; at least not for their profit. They are entitled to have a wrong set right, and every possible assistance ought to be given by the police, just as by all other citizens.