§ 65. Mr. RICHARDSasked the Attorney-General what reasons influenced him to ask the High Court for permission to have the trial of the three men implicated in the recent burning of the bombing school at Pwllheli transferred to the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Donald (Somervell)Facts were brought to my knowledge which in my view made it my duty to apply to the court for a transfer to the Central Criminal Court on the ground that such transfer was, to quote the Act of Parliament, "expedient to the ends of justice." I might add that none of the facts which I brought to the notice of the court were disputed, and on these facts the court, after hearing argument against the transfer, did not require me to reply.
§ Mr. RICHARDSIs it usual for such an application to be made except in the interests of the defendants? Is it usual for an application to be made by the prosecution, particularly where the Crown is prosecuting?
The ATTORNEY-GENERALThe Act of Parliament draws no distinction between the prosecution and the defence. It is the duty of either side, if facts are brought to their notice which in their view make it proper to apply to the court, to do so.
§ Mr. RICHARDSDoes the Attorney-General still subscribe to the dictum that citizens of this country, whether they are Welshmen or not, should be tried by their peers, and does he think these three Welshmen are likely to find their peers on the slopes of Ludgate Hill?
The ATTORNEY-GENERALI have to deal with the law as it has been enacted by this House, and the law as it has been enacted gives power—indeed, in my view imposes a duty—to bring certain facts to the notice of the courts on application should they come to my knowledge. Personally, I resent the suggestion that fair trials cannot be obtained before juries anywhere—[HON. MEMBERS: "Then why move the trial? "]—except, of course, in those cases where the court have thought it proper on the facts before them to make a transfer.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe cannot debate this matter now.