HC Deb 03 December 1956 vol 561 cc849-50
1. Mr. Paget

asked the Attorney-General why application was made for a special bill of indictment against Mrs. Richardson after the magistrates had decided that there was no evidence against her.

3. Mr. Royle

asked the Attorney-General why application for a bill of indictment was made in the case of Mrs. Richardson within a few days of sessions commencing, when magistrates had refused to commit on the ground that they could find no prima facie case.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster)

The Director of Public Prosecutions was advised by counsel that an application should be made.

Mr. Paget

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say a little more than that? Is he aware that when the matter came before the judge at the trial it was submitted, as the magistrates had already found, that there was no evidence, and counsel for the prosecution, Mr. Maxwell Turner, then said he agreed that there was no evidence? Further, will the Solicitor-General give an assurance that the real reason for this action was not in order to place before the jury a statement by Mrs. Richardson highly prejudicial to Mrs. Clarke which could not otherwise have been put before the jury at her trial?

The Solicitor-General

In reply to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question, the House will realise, and he knows, that the form in which the evidence comes out at the trial is not necessarily that which it assumes before the magistrates. With reference to the second supplementary question, I can certainly give him that assurance. The House, knowing the hon. and learned Gentleman as I do, would not for a moment think that he had thought of the imputation he is making upon counsel in making that suggestion; but, if he has no faith in counsel, I feel sure that he and the House will realise that the reasons submitted were those which appeared to the learned judge to be sound when he had considered the matter for two and a half hours.

Mr. Royle

Is not this really a very serious matter indeed? Is the hon. and learned Solicitor-General aware that the special bill of indictment was applied for only a very few days before the sessions, and because the defence had to be prepared for Mrs. Richardson she had to spend many more weeks in custody while that defence was being prepared? May I put another point of view in asking another question? Is not this kind of action calculated to give justices the impression that in their function as examining magistrates their time has been wasted? Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman see that there is no repetition of this kind of thing in future, when, after all, the magistrates were vindicated by the judge and jury at the trial?

The Solicitor-General

On the last point, I know that the hon. Member will understand that the answer is the same as that which I gave to the hon. and learned Member. The evidence does not come out in the same form as at the trial. I could not undertake to alter what Parliament has laid down in this respect. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the indictment rules, which are framed under the particular statute under which the application was made, he will find that there is a whole paragraph with subparagraphs devoted exactly to the case of preferring a bill when the magistrates have themselves refused to commit. Parliament obviously meant this to be a contemplated action.