§ 42. Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to state the result of his review of proceedings taken under Regulation 39B dealing with statements likely to cause alarm or despondency; how many such proceedings have been taken; in how many cases penalties have been revised; and what general advice has been tendered to magistrates?
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson)In accordance with the undertaking which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the House on 23rd July, I have carefully reviewed the convictions under Regulation 39BA, and I issued to the Press on 27th July a statement of the result of this review. I cannot conveniently summarise this statement within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary Question, but I may say that, leaving out of account some 20 cases where the sentences had expired or the fines were small, there were 28 cases which appeared to me to require consideration. I felt justified in one of these cases in advising the remission of part of a sentence of imprisonment and in 12 other cases in advising the remission of substantial parts of the fines. I have issued a circular to chief constables advising them, before submitting cases for prosecution, to consider whether they could not properly be dealt with by a warning, unless the offence has been frequently committed or is otherwise of a serious character. As regards cases in which prosecutions are taken, the appropriate action to be taken by the court must depend on the facts of the individual cases, and I do not think there is any general advice which I could properly give to magistrates, but I think that the steps which have been taken will serve the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind.
§ Mr. ManderDoes my right hon. Friend know of any precedent for the wholesale interference by the Executive 408 with the judiciary that has taken place under this Regulation, and does he think it is desirable that that should occur?
§ Sir J. AndersonI do not think it is correct to describe the action taken as wholesale interference with the judiciary. The Prerogative power, which is applicable in all criminal cases, is properly not regarded as interference with the judiciary. There were, as I think the House recognises, special circumstances in connection with these prosecutions, taken as they were at a time of considerable tension, and I did my best in the discharge of my duty to apply some uniformity to the sentences which were inflicted under the Regulation recently passed.