§ 78. Mr. EDEasked the Attorney-General on what basis the Public Prosecutor selected the three members of the South Shields Borough Council who were recently prosecuted on charges of having taken part in proceedings of the council in which they bad a personal interest?
§ The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell)One of the defendants in this case was selected as having taken a leading part in the proceedings. The other two were the first names on the lists respectively of aldermen and councillors voting.
§ Mr. EDEDoes not the hon. and learned Gentleman think, in view of the fact that there were 46 persons who took part in the voting, it is apt to bring justice into contempt to proceed against only three of them, two on the basis of alphabetical order, especially as the process used resulted in three men who had been unemployed for several years being prosecuted and having to defend themselves, though there were men of other parties of considerable wealth who were equally guilty if, in fact, any fault was committed?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALThese proceedings were instituted in order to get a decision as to whether the granting by councillors of free passes to themselves on corporation trams and omnibuses was an offence under Section 76. The court held that it was. No suggestion of corruption was made. It was brought as a test case. I think it would have been oppressive in those circumstances to take proceedings against all the councillors. On the other hand, if proceedings had been taken only against one the suggestion might have been made that he had been singled out for some reason. I suggest that the course adopted was a perfectly reasonable one, to take proceedings against three representatives of the council. In fact, what happened was that they were convicted of the offence and were discharged under the 1099 Probation of Offenders Act on paying two guineas costs.
§ Mr. EDEIf the only point was to get a decision as a test, would it not have been better to ascertain that the people to be prosecuted would be able to defend themselves and secure that their case should be adequately put before the court?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALIn a case where it is thought reasonable in everybody's interest not to proceed against everybody. I think it is much better not to make an inquiry but to adopt the same method as was adopted in this case, namely, to take the first name on the alphabetical list.
§ Mr. THORNEDoes it mean that, if that proceeding stands, every local authority will be compelled to come to this House to get permission to grant free passes on trams or omnibuses under their control?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI do not think that that arises out of the question.
§ Mr. SHINWELLIs it true that these were all members of one party?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI have not the faintest idea of the political opinions of the persons prosecuted, one case because the man had taken a prominent part in the proceedings, and the first two names on the list. No inquiries were made as to political parties, and I have not the faintest idea of their political opinions.