§ 36. Mr. Snowasked the Attorney General what consideration the Director of Public Prosecutions has given to the suggestion made by Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones at the trial of Mr. John Brown at Stafford Assizes on 20th October, 1965 that a Bill of Indictment might be preferred against F.M.C. Products, Notting ham, Limited, and their transport manager; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe Director of Public Prosecutions caused careful and extensive police inquiries to be made and discussed the case with me on several occasions. We came to the conclusion that, on the evidence available, the only proceedings which could be brought with a sufficient prospect of success against the company and its transport manager were summary proceedings for a contravention of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations.
§ Mr. SnowHas the Director of Public Prosecutions now had an opportunity to examine the notes of the proceedings in the magistrates' court, proceedings which resulted from the Director's refusal to prefer a bill of indictment against the company? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I attended a case and that no evidence that I heard seemed to me to justify not putting the firm on a charge—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—on indictment?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe company was, as my hon. Friend knows, prosecuted and fined the maximum penalty under the regulations. The proceedings in the magistrates' court were, of course, considered and reported upon, but nothing that transpired in those proceedings shed further light on the essential questions which had to be considered when we dealt with the suggestion of the trial judge that there should be proceedings by way of indictment against the company.