§ 51. Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that two police officers suggested to an individual, from whom they were making inquiries in connection with the organisation of a lottery, that if he would plead guilty to a technical offence they would arrange for the case to be heard quietly by a particular magistrate and for the imposition of a specified fine; whether this inducement was held out before any formal charge had been made; and what action it is proposed to take?
§ 52. Sir W. DAVISONasked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make regarding the action of two police officers who introduced themselves to the Duke of Atholl as a deputation from the Home Office, saying they were acting under the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and requested him to plead guilty to a technical offence under the Lotteries Act, which he was advised he had not committed, in which case arrangements would be made to frame a charge before a particular magistrate so that only a nominal fine would be inflicted upon him, that the proceedings would be put through quietly, and that no reflection would be made on his personal character?
§ 50. Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that two police officers, acting as emissaries 29 of the Director of Public Prosecutions, interviewed His Grace the Duke of Atholl in connection with a fund which he was organising; whether they had any authority to appear as a deputation from the Home Office; and, if so, what were the instructions given to them in connection with that interview?
§ The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)I have been asked to reply, as the police officers in the case referred to were acting under the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, subject to my directions.
It is a common practice where it is intended to take proceedings under the Lotteries Acts in respect of an illegal lottery that the promoter, if known, should be interviewed by the police in the first instance in order to ascertain whether he accepts responsibility for the alleged lottery. At this stage no question of guilt or innocence is at issue and the sole purpose of this preliminary inquiry is to effect a considerable saving of expense with regard to matters of formal proof.
In pursuance of this practice the director instructed the police officers concerned to inform the Duke of Atholl that they were visiting him on the director's instructions, and, after cautioning him, to ascertain whether he accepted responsibility for the scheme and for certain advertisements which had been issued in connection therewith. These were the sole instructions given by the director. I desire to repudiate categorically and in the most emphatic terms the suggestions that the police officers were instructed to inform the Duke that it was desired that he should plead guilty to a technical offence in order to avoid public mischief notwithstanding that he might not have committed any technical offence, or that arrangements would be made for the case to be heard quietly by a particular magistrate and for the imposition of a specified fine.
As regards the conduct of the police officers, I am informed that they emphatically deny that they obtained any statement from the Duke of Atholl in an improper manner or that they held out any inducements to him to plead guilty. According to their statements they informed him of the object of their visit and asked him whether he accepted responsibility 30 for the publication of certain documents and statements attributed to him or whether they had been published without his authority. On two occasions the police attempted to caution the Duke in the usual form, but on both occasions they were interrupted by the Duke who said that he understood the caution. In reply to friendly questions by the Duke in the course of conversation the police-informed him that if proceedings were taken they would probably be taken at Bow Street, that they would be under Section 41 of the Lotteries Act, 1823, and that the maximum penalty under that Section was £25. At no time was the name of any magistrate mentioned,
§ Mr. McENTEEIn view of the very grave misgiving in the public mind with regard to the administration of justice caused by this statement of the Duke, is it proposed by the Public Prosecutor to take any action against the Duke?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALNo, Sir.
§ Sir W. DAVISONIs the learned Attorney-General aware that the Duke was not cautioned when the police officers, alleging that they came as a deputation from the Home Office, first saw him, and is he aware that the Duke was asked to plead guilty to a nominal offence in order that in the interests, pro bono publico, the public should be deceived in the matter?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat question has already been answered.
§ Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEIs the learned Attorney-General aware of the impression upon the House that the explanation he now gives is tantamount to a charge of perjury against the Duke?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI have stated the facts as I have been informed they are, and as I partly know them within my own knowledge.
§ Sir W. DAVISONAs the statements show a great discrepancy, will a public inquiry be held? The public are entitled to know what the real facts of the case are.
§ Mr. McENTEEIn view of the fact that there is a very great difference between the statement of the Duke and that just made, and as, if the Attorney-General's statement is true, it really implies perjury on the part of the Duke, 31 does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to consider the matter with a view to prosecution?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALThe hon. Member is well aware that statements made in another place cannot be made the subject of prosecution.
§ Sir W. DAVISONWill an inquiry be held? That is what the public are interested in. The public are not interested in the Duke of Atholl, but are interested in the administration of justice and want an inquiry.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALAs at present advised, I see no necessity for an inquiry.