§ 4. Mr. Rankinasked the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to instituting criminal proceedings 182 against the former directors of Independent Air Travel Limited.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralNone. The time for instituting proceedings for offences against the Air Navigation Order and Regulations expired on 2nd March, 1959. No evidence that would justify a prosecution for offences against the Order or Regulations was submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend by that date; and no evidence that would justify a prosecution for any other offence has been submitted to him at any time.
§ Mr. RankinDoes not the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard this as a very serious matter, in view of the terms of the report of the learned Mr. Justice Phillimore? Is he aware that the report states clearly that the directors of the company are held responsible for the deaths of a great many people, while in their own evidence they sought to lay the blame for these deaths on a man who could not speak for himself, the captain of the plane? Is nothing going to be done about that? Is that the position?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe position is precisely as I have stated. The House will remember that in this case the inquest took rather a long time and the practice, as indicated by the courts of law, is broadly that charges for lesser offences than manslaughter ought not to be brought forward until after the completion of the inquest proceedings. I am not saying—I hope the House would not think I was saying—that there was at any material time before my right hon. and learned Friend evidence of any lesser offence than manslaughter here committed. I concede that there are now disclosed by the investigation offences against the Regulations, but, as I have explained, there is a statutory period of limitation already past in respect of those.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsDoes the Solicitor-General realise that there will be great disturbance about this fact? There is serious concern about the revelation of the breaking of the Regulations over a period consistent with all the calamitous consequences. Are we to understand from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that no further action is contemplated or can be taken?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI am simply explaining to the House why there could not now be a prosecution for the particular alleged offences specified in the report. The Statutory Regulation prohibits it at this stage.
§ Mr. RankinIs Parliament now in the situation where a group of people are designated by an honourable justice of this country as criminals in fact and nothing can be done about it? Are we helpless in that matter? Is that what the Solicitor-General is saying?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI do not quite accept the words of the hon. Gentleman in saying "designated as criminals". I should not be content to be taken as accepting those words as strictly accurate. Unfortunately, I have not got the report in my hands at the moment, but I have told the House, and I must make it quite plain, that there is not available, there have never been submitted, to my right hon. and learned Friend, evidence justifying a prosecution for any offence in respect of which it is now possible to prosecute in law.
§ Mr. EdeHas the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered the desirability, in view of what has happened in this case, of ensuring that inquiries which have to be completed before the law is able to step in are completed in time for a prosecution to take place if, in fact, one is justified?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe House will realise that one would be most eager to see that we never reach a position of this kind again. On the other hand, as far as I know, there is no possibility of dictating to coroners, for instance, what they do. I will give every possible consideration to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in this respect, and will consider doing everything that can possibly be done to prevent a position of this kind being reached again.