§ 2. Mr. Orbachasked the Attorney-General what representations have been made to him concerning a prosecution by Messrs. Kodak Ltd., of two of their employees, which was dismissed by the courts, and which showed that there was a conspiracy by Messrs Kodak Ltd. and a foreign agent to pervert the course of justice; and if he will request the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute proceedings for conspiracy by the company and perjury by their agent.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have received five letters on this subject from hon. Members and one signed by a number of members of the public. This prosecution was not brought by Messrs. Kodak Ltd., but, with my consent, by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I cannot agree that the proceedings revealed a conspiracy on the part of Kodaks to pervert the course of justice, and I have come to the conclusion, after taking all the relevant considerations into account, that the witness, Soupert, should not be prosecuted for perjury. The Director of Public Prosecutions takes the same view.
§ Mr. OrbachI thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, although from my point of view it is not very satisfactory. [Interruption.] thanked him because he had been courteous. Is he aware that these two men were arrested on a trumped-up charge of stealing felt on 29th November, 1964, that one of them was called upon by an inspector and six plain clothes policemen, that the other was arrested at work and that these charges were also withdrawn before the case in which Messrs. Kodak was involved? Does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that in view of the inducement given to the double agent Soupert of £5,000 by the Kodak Company to come to this country to give evidence—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot rehearse all these facts in the form of a supplementary question. Cannot the hon. Gentleman somehow round it off?
§ Mr. OrbachDoes my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that all the circumstances in this case—in view of the 1637 latest incident which I have brought to his attention—show a shocking miscarriage of justice?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have considered all the factors that have been referred to by my hon. Friend. There was no shocking miscarriage of justice in the sense that the two accused, of whom he speaks, were acquitted. With great respect, I wonder whether their best interest is served by a rehearing of the trial in the House of Commons.
§ Mr. GrantWill the Attorney-General make it quite clear that not only was the prosecution brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions and not by Messrs. Kodak, but that the compilation and acquiring of evidence was done by the police and not by Kodaks? Is it in order for an hon. Member, under the cloak of privilege, to make serious accusations without shred of evidence against people who cannot answer back?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is inconvenient to raise a point of order in the middle of a supplementary question addressed to a minister from every conceivable point of view. What the hon. Member did is in order. In so far as it raises a point of order, the hon. Gentleman's complaint is not against the Chair but against another hon. Member because he does not like what he said.
§ The Attorney-GeneralIn so far as any of the last supplementary question remains, I have nothing to add to what I said in my initial Answer to the Question.
§ Mr. LiptonDo the relevant considerations to which the Attorney-General referred in his original reply mean that certain security considerations are here involved which make it desirable, from the Government's point of view, that the least said soonest mended?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am grateful to my hon. Friend for that supplementary question. Security considerations were involved, and I am sure that the House would not expect me to go into them.
§ Mr. OrbachOwing to the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.