LYNSKEY TRIBUNAL (Hansard, 14 February 1949)

§ 47. Sir W. Smithers
asked the Attorney-General if, in view of comments by members of the Lynskey Tribunal, any prosecutions for perjury are contemplated.

§ The Attorney-General
No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the Private Notice Question by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on Thursday, 3rd February.

§ Sir W. Smithers
In spite of that answer, may I ask the Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact that the evidence at the Lynskey Tribunal was taken on oath, he will ask the Public Prosecutor to review the evidence with a view to taking proceedings as suggested in my Question?

§ The Attorney-General
The Public Prosecutor, who was represented by counsel holding a watching brief at the Tribunal, has already considered this matter with considerable care, but a prosecution for alleged perjury is attended by various technical difficulties, and I apprehend that it would be difficult to select from the welter of conflicting statements one which was not only material to the matters under inquiry and the falsity of which could be established by two witnesses, but which was not contradicted very shortly after it had been made, by the same witness.

§ Sir W. Smithers
Is the House to understand that perjury can be committed before a British tribunal, and the man who commits it can get away with it?

§ The Attorney-General
I hope that will not be understood.

§ 49. Sir David Maxwell Fyfe
asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the statements relative to the Lynskey Tribunal made by Mr. George Gibson on a British Movietone newsreel recently released to the public on which grave charges were made against the Tribunal and it was stated that Mr. Gibson was not permitted to, and could not, call witnesses for his defence and that had he been permitted to produce witnesses he could have rebutted the allegations against him; and if he proposes to institute any proceedings in the matter.

§ The Attorney-General
Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to the interview in question and in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions I have given grave consideration to the question whether proceedings ought to be taken in respect of it. British Movietone News withdrew the film from circulation as soon as the matter was brought to their notice and in the circumstances I have decided that no further action is called for. I think it right, however, to take the opportunity of saying that there is no truth 785 in the statement that Mr. Gibson was not permitted to call witnesses. As appears from the Report of the Tribunal, the conclusions against him were based almost entirely on his own evidence and on his letters and it is not easy to see what witnesses he could usefully have called in order to contradict the effect of his own sworn testimony. However that may be, he made no request to the Tribunal, to the Treasury Solicitor or to me that other witnesses should be called, nor did counsel on his behalf make any oral application in court as he would no doubt have done if any request to call witnesses had been improperly neglected or refused, or if he had thought that other relevant evidence existed which in the interests of his client should have been submitted to the Tribunal.

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
In view of the fact that the Tribunal functioned as a result of a Resolution of this House, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that there is a clear method of protecting its members from being scandalised after they have finished performing their duties?

§ The Attorney-General
Yes, Sir. Without going at length into the technicalities of the matter, I certainly would not like it to be thought that the existing machinery of the law is powerless to protect judicial Tribunals like this whose proceedings are scandalised without reasonable and probable cause. I think there is machinery which might be made use of in an appropriate case.

§ Mr. Blackburn
In regard to the use of the word "defence" in this Question, is it not a fact that Mr. George Gibson was never charged with any criminal offence whatsoever and surely he has a right to protest against the method of this Tribunal? Will not the Attorney-General give the impression that we are not going to prevent a man from protesting his innocence when he has never been charged with any crime?

§ The Attorney-General
Mr. George Gibson thought fit to describe the proceedings of the Tribunal as a travesty of justice on one ground only, which he repeated on three occasions, namely, that he was not permitted to call witnesses, and that, had he been allowed to call them, he could have established his 786 innocence. That ground was entirely untrue; he never applied to call any witnesses at all.

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
In fairness, and following the question put by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) would the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the words "for my defence" occur in Mr. Gibson's statement?

§ The Attorney-General
That is perfectly true; that expression was one Mr. Gibson thought fit to use in public in the interview he gave.

§ Mr. Gallacher
In view of the fact that Mr. Gibson said of a Tribunal set up by this House that it was a travesty of British justice, has he not committed an offence against this House? Should not something be done about that?

§ The Attorney-General
That perhaps is not a matter for me, but it often happens that those who are condemned by the law do not retain a good opinion of the law. Perhaps we must not be too hard in proceedings about it.

§ Mr. Blackburn
While acknowledging the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer has been conciliatory on the point, may I ask him to bear in mind that no one can know what witnesses to call in his defence if he is not presented with some precise charge against him and that, therefore, there is undoubtedly a sense in which Mr. Gibson's remarks are true?

§ The Attorney-General
If I may, I must disabuse the hon. Gentleman's mind of that impression. The allegations against those involved in the Lynskey Tribunal were made abundantly clear in very great detail by me in my opening speech. Fifteen sitting days, or more, went by before Mr. Gibson was called upon to give his evidence.

§ Sir John Mellor
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that Movietone News have withdrawn the newsreel. Will he say whether Mr. Gibson has also withdrawn his statement?

§ The Attorney-General
I have not heard whether Mr. Gibson has withdrawn his statement or not.