§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you a question which is of some difficulty. It is one which, unfortunately, I could not give you notice of, and, therefore, I do not ask for a reply immediately. It is a matter which is causing some difficulty to the House and concerns the raising of any matter pertaining to a criminal case which is pending appeal.
There is a rule of the House, which was decided as recently as Session 1962–63, that where a notice of appeal has been entered no matter can be raised in the House. Since that time, even though it was so recent. there have been observations in the Court of Appeal which have allowed the Press to comment quite freely upon matters which are pending appeal because it is considered by the Court that there is no danger of contempt in such comment because no Appeal Court judge is likely to be thereby influenced.
Would it not be right that this matter, although so recently decided in the House, should be reconsidered in the light of these rulings of the Court of Appeal so that this House should have as much right to comment as the Press? Surely it is right that we as Members of Parliament primarily responsible ultimately for law and order should also have the right to comment as much as any newspaper.
I raised this with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure last year, but so far no time has been available, to the Committee at any rate, to consider the matter. It seems as time 1385 passes that we are in danger of losing our right to comment to the Press.
§ Mr. SpeakerI did not know of the point which the hon. Member intended to raise
The position is very simple. We are bound by Resolution of the House that, once a matter is before the courts, either by trial or by appeal, the House forgoes the right to comment on the matter which is sub judice. It does that, I believe, in the interests of justice itself, and especially in the interests of the person affected, him or herself. It is, however, in order for hon. Members to raise any matter in between the first trial and the notice of appeal.
I take it that the purpose of the House of Commons Resolution is that the House would not wish to try cases which are still before the courts. That freedom of comment might very well endanger the cause which the hon. Member has very deeply in mind as a learned gentleman, the course of justice itself.
This, then, is the position at the moment, that if a matter is sub judice it cannot be commented on in this House of Commons. I do not think that this is a denial of freedom.