HC Deb 30 June 1969 vol 786 cc32-3
40. Mr. Peter M. Jackson

asked the Attorney-General why an inquiry made by Mr. B. J. Quirk, acting on behalf of Messrs. John Lovesay and Anthony Peterson, accused of murdering Mr. Sydney Epps on 24th January, 1968, addressed to the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting information from police records concerning a prosecution witness whose name has been sent to him, elicited a negative response, in view of the fact that a subsequent inquiry established that the witness had misled the court ; and whether he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General

At the time of the first inquiry from the defendants' solicitor, the information available to the Director of Public Prosecutions was that there were no convictions recorded against the witness. It was later reported to the Director that the witness had a number of convictions under various names, and he immediately informed the defendants' solicitor of the details.

Mr. Jackson

Will not my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that the information given me by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) in reply to a Question on 19th June, indicating that only one name and not the aliases of this witness was given, was incorrect? The aliases were given, and there is no reason why the record should not have been provided to Mr. Quirk?

The Attorney-General

I am answerable in this House for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he acted on the basis of the information supplied him by the police.

Forward to