§ 1. Mr. Marloweasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the recent observations of the Court of Appeal in relation to the exercise of Crown Privilege in respect of the production of documents in litigation; and whether, since it is undesirable that the good faith of Ministers exercising this jurisdiction should be called in question, he will appoint an ad hoc committee of Ministers and High Court judges to make recommendations with regard to the law and practice on this subject.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)No. I assume that my hon. and learned Friend is referring to the case of Auten v. Rayner, in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary objected in the public interest to the production of reports made by a police officer to his superiors, and communications passing between police forces in connection with an investigation into an alleged criminal offence. The enforcement of the criminal law would, of course, be seriously impeded if the production of such documents could be compelled.
The objection was challenged by the plaintiff on a number of grounds, all of which were rejected by the Court of Appeal in a considered judgment which expressed no dissatisfaction with the existing law and practice. In particular, the Court ruled that there were no grounds for suspecting my right hon. Friend of bias, and pointed out how extravagant it would be to suppose that a Minister in my right hon. Friend's position would be in the least disabled or disqualified from giving proper consideration to the question whether it was 856 in the public interest that the documents should be produced. In these circumstances, as I said in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) last week, I do not consider that there is any need for a further review of the position.
§ Mr. MarloweWhile, of course, agreeing with my right hon. and learned Friend that there was no question of the possibility of bias on the part of the Home Secretary in this matter, my Question is directed rather to the wider issue. Would he not agree that, on the whole, on this question of Crown privilege there is a considerable body of high judicial opinion that takes a view contrary to that of my right hon. and learned Friend, and would not that alone be sufficient ground for some independent investigation of this matter?
Secondly, is he aware of the considerable support there is for the proposal that documents should be classified in two sections; those contrary to national security, which would retain the present protection, and those said to be contrary to public interest, which might well be submitted to some other body to determine where the public interest really does lie? That would obviate the suggestion that a Minister was biased.
§ The Attorney-GeneralVarious suggestions have been put forward from time to time. I think that all the suggestions that have been canvassed, including those now put forward again by my hon. and learned Friend, were considered when the whole matter was reviewed in 1956. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) last week, the Government came to the conclusion that no amendment of the law was required but, with the object of minimising the prejudice that might unavoidably be caused to litigants by the withholding of evidence, certain modifications of practice should be made. So far as I am aware, that practice, as modified, is now working well.