HC Deb 20 June 1963 vol 679 cc626-8
15. Mr. Abse

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the rule prohibiting, in an indictment for murder, counts for other charges, is causing hardship; and if he will introduce legislation to ensure that any man acquitted of murder will not subsequently, as a consequence of the present rule, be charged with other offences upon facts presented to the court which has ordered his acquittal.

Mr. Brooke

This prohibition is contained in a ruling given by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1918 on the ground that a trial for murder is too serious and complicated to have other counts included in the indictment. The ruling is in favour of the accused, and, as at present advised, I am not satisfied that there is a case for introducing legislation to abrogate it.

Mr. Abse

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been considerable hardship in a recent case because the Attorney-General insisted upon a trial proceeding against a man already acquitted of murder, despite the vigorous protests made by a High Court judge—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me. Is not that case still sub judice—a charge made and pending? If so, we ought not to discuss it.

Mr. Abse

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am raising the question whether the trial should proceed or not. I am not raising a question as to the merits or demerits of the trial itself. All I am seeking to ask is whether it is proper that the case should proceed. The judge has already given his view, and the Attorney-General has already decided that the case should proceed.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Gentleman were asking a question of the Attorney-General relating to these activities, it might be a different matter, but I do not think that we ought to discuss now a particular case.

Mr. Abse

May I take the point further, Mr. Speaker? On the point of whether hardship exists, as I understand the reply of the Home Secretary, what he is suggesting is that the procedure is acting for the benefit of the accused. I am seeking to adduce that it is, in fact, acting to the detriment of the accused. Therefore, I respectfully submit that it is proper for me—obviously, without going into details of the case—to have contained in my supplementary question a reference to a case where hardship has, in the view of the judge, occurred as a result of permitting the case to proceed.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that discussion of the general principle is objectionable, but to discuss whether or not the prosecution of that case at the moment involves hardship is infringing our rules, and in that respect the matter is sub judice.

Mr. S. Silverman

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not clear that whatever answer the Home Secretary might choose to give to my hon. Friend's question would have no bearing whatever on any question now before any court? It is a general question about the general state of the law which could not in any circumstances influence the result in the present case, and if that is so, would not the question be in order?

Mr. Speaker

If that were so in my view, that result would follow, but it is not so in my view.