HC Deb 24 June 1963 vol 679 cc943-5
49. Mr. Grimond

asked the Attorney-General what charge has now been made against Miss Marilyn Rice-Davies; and under what authority she was prevented from leaving the country.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke)

I have been asked to reply.

No charge has been made against her. When about to leave the country she was taken into custody because the police were pursuing inquiries about her activities which might eventually justify bringing charges against her. To give time for these inquiries to be completed she has been allowed bail under Section 38(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, on a condition to attend at the Marylebone Police Station on 28th June, unless in the meantime she is informed that her attendance is not required.

Mr. Grimond

Will the Home Secretary accept that I realise that the Attorney-General, speaking off the cuff during the debate, did mistake the situation; that that might happen to anyone and that this is not a vendetta upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman? But can the Home Secretary be a little more explicit about exactly what has happened? Section 38 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, under which she was detained, speaks of taking someone into custody "for an offence". On Thursday last the Home Secretary said that she was taken into custody as a wanted witness. That does not appear to be the same. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House for what offence she was taken into custody?

Mr. Brooke

I never said that she was taken into custody as a witness. Nor can I say anything about possible charges that may be brought against her. It would not be in the public interest for me to do so while the matter is under further consideration.

Mr. Lipton

Does not the Home Secretary realise that in fact the Attorney-General was telling the truth and not the Home Secretary, that this lady was taken into custody for an offence without a warrant? Does not the Home Secretary appreciate that under Section 38(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, the only circumstance in which anyone can be held up in the way that Miss Marilyn Rice-Davies was held up is under that particular Section, taken into custody for an offence without a warrant? What was the offence and, if there was an offence, why was there not a warrant issued?

Mr. Brooke

I cannot add anything to my statement. I have made perfectly clear what the facts are. They are as I have stated. It was in reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who accepted the reasons why at this stage I could say nothing more.

Mr. Grimond

May I ask the Home Secretary to look at his answer, as reported in HANSARD at column 629, in which he said: The position is that she is not on a charge. My right hon. and learned Friend was answering a question at short notice. She is not on a charge. She actually has entered into recognisance to appear at St. Marylebone police station on 28th June."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 629.] Is this to answer a charge or to give evidence as a witness?

Mr. Brooke

Consideration is being given to the question whether a charge should be brought against her. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] That is precisely what I have said, and this is an entirely separate matter from a different question which was put to me about her being brought back from Marjorca on a different occasion.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Can the Home Secretary say under what legal authority the police acted?

Mr. Brooke

I said that in my original Answer.

Mr. Fletcher

Can the Home Secretary say under what authority he is entitled to keep people in this country against their will, and for how long, while he is making up his mind whether there is to be a charge against them or not?

Mr. Brooke

I have already said that the police were acting under Section 38 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952.