HC Deb 01 December 1942 vol 385 cc991-2
31. Mr. McKinlay

asked the Lord Advocate whether he will inquire into the whole circumstances surrounding the prosecution on the 19th October of a War Department policeman before Sheriff Hamilton, at Paisley sheriff court, charged with refusing to obey an order?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid)

I have inquired into this matter. This policeman disobeyed an order by his superior to submit himself to search on entering a danger area. He was prosecuted, convicted and fined £5, with the alternative of 30 days imprisonment.

Mr. McKinlay

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the observation was made during the trial that the police were committing perjury? Will he have an inquiry into the whole circumstances? The dispute is whether an order was given or not. I must press for an inquiry into all the circumstances.

The Lord Advocate

There was a conflict of evidence between the policemen, which indicated that one or other of them had committed perjury. There was an inquiry in the ordinary course by the police but no sufficient evidence has been forthcoming to determine which committed perjury.

Mr. McKinlay

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of my constituents are involved in this? An inquiry was started, but the evidence was all the wrong way round, and, as a consequence, it was dropped. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take a hand and see that an impartial inquiry is set up?

The Lord Advocate

If the hon. Member has any further information to give me, so that I can extend the scope of the inquiry already instituted, I shall be very glad to do so. But all existing sources of information have been inquired into.

Mr. McKinlay

I will let the right hon. and learned Gentleman have the correspondence.

Commander Locker-Lampson

Is not this clearly a case for re-trial?

The Lord Advocate

No. The point on which perjury was committed was not essential to a successful prosecution. The sheriff said so.

Mr. McKinlay

On a point of Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has introduced the name of the sheriff. In putting my Question to the Clerk at the Table, reference to the sheriff was specifically precluded, and I could not raise the matter. I appeal to you, Sir, to prevent Ministers introducing matters which Members cannot introduce.

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid I did not hear what was said.

Commander Locker-Lampson

If perjury was committed on both sides—

The Lord Advocate

I did not say that perjury was committed on both sides, but on one side or the other. Whichever side it was, there was evidence which in my judgment warranted a prosecution and a conviction.