HC Deb 11 May 1966 vol 728 cc400-3
42. Mr. Gresham Cooke

asked Mr. Attorney-General if he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring proceedings against the newspapers which made payments to witnesses in a recent murder trial for articles and stories, in view of the fact that such payments have the effect of suborning witnesses.

The Attorney-General

There is no evidence that the testimony of any witness in the murder trial referred to was affected by the payments in question. After careful consideration, I have decided not to take proceedings in respect of the newspaper concerned. However, the practice of paying witnesses for information about the subject matter of a trial and interviewing them about that information before they give evidence does give rise to serious problems in relation to the administration of justice. Accordingly, the Government proposes to examine these problems with a view to making such changes in the law as may prove necessary.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

While thanking the Attorney-General for the second part of his Answer, is he aware that many people think that practices of this nature, as evidenced in the moors trial, should be stamped on very hard, because there is a belief that payments to witnesses in criminal trials, where they get bigger sums if convictions are secured, may lead to witnesses erring in the truth of the evidence that they give in trials?

The Attorney-General

I am aware of this public concern, which I share myself. However, I should not by silence accept the suggestion that in this particular case a bigger sum was offered in the event of a conviction. If that were to remain without challenge, it might be unfair to the newspaper concerned.

Mr. Strauss

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a general appreciation of the admirable way in which he conducted this horrible case?

Mr. Hogg

Did I understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he put his answer in the form of what I thought was a double negative, that the suggestion that the payment was contingent on a particular result is without foundation; because that is what particularly worried a great number of people, including myself?

The Attorney-General

That was one of the matters that I had to consider. There was some evidence orally to the effect that that was the arrangement. However, other evidence that was obtained by the police was to the contrary effect, and the most important factor which decided me not to take proceedings was the knowledge that, in any event, the evidence of the two witnesses, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, was not affected by any of these payments at all. I will not weary the House with the matters which arose evidentially which enabled me to come to that conclusion.

Mr. Grimond

Is the Attorney-General aware that there will be general satisfaction that he is going to look into this matter, and that there is wide disquiet over these matters, whether or not they are dependent upon a conviction? Will he also bear in mind when examining them that responsibility must surely lie on the proprietors and owners of newspapers, and must not be sloughed off on to editors and newspapermen?

The Attorney-General

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intimation. This is a problem which the Press proprietors and, if I may say so, journalists have to face. It is essential that in this country there should be no trial by newspaper, and that the fountain of justice should not be polluted by external pressures.

Mr. Carlisle

Is the Attorney-General aware that the important point is not so much whether the payment was contingent on the result as whether or not the witness thought that the payment was contingent on the result? Surely there was clear evidence in this case that that was the belief of the witness. Would he not agree that it is wholly monstrous for a payment to be made to an important witness prior to his giving evidence, and would he look at the matter?

The Attorney-General

Those were the two matters to which I referred in my original Answer. They are important matters, and it seems to me that a long process of questioning a witness before he gives evidence, sometimes between committal proceedings' and his giving testimony at the trial proper, has possibilities of grave impropriety for the proper conduct of the trial.

Mr. Blackburn

Is the Attorney-General aware that, whether the newspaper promised more or less, there is a great deal of resentment in my constituency, where these witnesses live?

The Attorney-General

I am aware of the public feeling on this matter, and I am grateful that these questions and the opinions that have been expressed in the House have underlined the importance of the matter. I hope that, even before any Government action is taken, Fleet Street will now put its house in order.

Mr. Paget

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask for your guidance with regard to the last four or five Questions. Is it not a fact that the decision whether or not to prosecute is an important judicial decision, and that a decision to prosecute, even if that prosecution should prove unsuccessful, is a decision to inflict a very severe penalty? How, then, do questions of this sort fit in with the general rule that there ought not to be political pressure exerted or attempted to be exerted, in this House or elsewhere, to decide a judicial point one way or the other?

Mr. Speaker

The lego-political implications of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me I must leave to the Attorney-General and to the Solicitor-General. But it has been the custom in the House for a long time that the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in not instituting a public prosecution or instituting one is something which is raised in the House with the Law Officers.