§ 36. Mr. Huntasked the Attorney-General why the Director of Public Prosecutions authorised proceedings against Mr. Robert Winter of the Tiger Club for alleged low flying.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe Director of Public Prosecutions brought these proceedings because, in his opinion, the evidence then available to him indicated that the offence had been committed and required that, in the public interest, such proceedings should be taken.
§ Mr. HuntSurely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that there was a great deal of conflicting evidence in this case, not least the fact that the complainants say that they saw either a blue or a blue-and-yellow plane, whereas 31 it later transpired that Mr. Robert Winter was not only not flying at that time but owned a red-and-silver plane? Is it not therefore clear that this was a frivolous and malicious prosecution? Should not there be some redress and some form of apology to Mr. Winter?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI repudiate both the adjectives which the hon. Gentleman used. It would be wrong for me to engage in public controversy about detailed evidence available to the prosecution in any given case. The danger is that it would become a retrial of the case, which could effect an injustice upon not only defendants but witnesses.