§ 69. Mr. CASSELLSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that under Circular No. 2644, dated 25th May, 1932, police officers on precognition are not allowed to divulge statements made to them by the drivers of vehicles involved in collision; and whether, where such evidence is relevant and material in civil or criminal proceedings, he will order that in future such officers on precognition may divulge the extent and character of such statements?
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper)Statements or precognitions of 2215 drivers of vehicles taken by the police for the information of their superior officers or the Crown Authorities would not normally be competent evidence in a Scottish Court. The Circular in question contains a recommendation that copies of such statements should not in general be supplied. My right hon. Friend does not propose to recommend any change in this practice. There is nothing in the Circular to suggest that police officers, when precognosced for the purposes of subsequent proceedings, should withhold information of anything which they have personally observed or heard, and of which evidence could competently be given by them in a court of law; but particulars obtained through the exercise by the police of specific statutory powers cannot as a rule be divulged—and in cases where criminal proceedings are pending or contemplated information in the possession of the police must be treated as confidential.
§ Mr. CASSELLSIs it not a fact that such evidence is permitted in a court of law, and that being so, does not the Lord Advocate agree that if this evidence were rendered available in the first instance much litigation would be avoided?
§ The LORD ADVOCATENo, Sir. Evidence of the type to which I refer in my original answer would not, apart from highly exceptional circumstances, be admitted.