HC Deb 08 April 1971 vol 815 cc669-71
30. Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what memoranda, instructions or recommendations have been sent or given to police authorities concerning the rights of people who have been detained for questioning, or following arrest, to consult their solicitors.

29. Mr. Peter Archer

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instruction or advice is given by him to police authorities relating to the right of persons detained to consult solicitors.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharpies)

In January, 1964, the attention of chief officers of police was drawn to the Judges' Rules and Administrative Directions to the Police. These deal, among other things, with the rights of a person at any stage of an investigation to communicate and consult privately with a solicitor.

Mr. Davis

I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he aware that, in what has become known as the Carr bombing case, at Barnet Police Station two men were detained for 24 and 48 hours respectively, 23 others were questioned for some period of time, all these people were subsequently released and many of them were denied the opportunity of seeing a solicitor? Is he further aware that the officer in charge of that investigation described the process of seeing a solicitor as "a legal nicety"? How is this consistent with the statement made to the House by the Secretary of State that: It is an accepted principle that every person at any stage of an investigation, even if in custody, should be able to communicate and to consult privately with a solicitor, provided that no unreasonable delay or hindrance is caused to the processes of the investigation or the administration of justice by his doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 1639.]

Mr. Sharples

My right hon. Friend stated the position accurately. It would be quite improper for me to comment in any way upon the case which the hon. Gentleman has raised, which is sub judice.

Mr. Davis

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has stated that the case is sub judice. The matters to which I have referred are not sub judice because these people were released.

Mr. Speaker

This is not a point of order for me. I am not responsible for Minister's answers.

Hon. Members

Let us have an answer.

Later—

Mr. Davis

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a supplementary question which I put to the Minister of State on Question 30, I specifically referred to 25 people who had been detained at Barnet police station and subsequently released. My Question related to those people. In reply the Minister of State indicated that it would not be proper for him to consider the activities of the officer in charge of those investigations because the matter was sub judice.

My point of order is as follows. First, was it not implicit from the Minister's reply that it was not in order to raise the supplementary question which I did? Secondly, is it not quite clear that it was incorrect for the Minister to allege that a case involving people who were not being tried was sub judice? Thirdly, was it not a reflection upon me, particularly in my capacity as a lawyer, to suggest that I did not understand what the sub judice rule was? In those circumstances, would it not be right to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw?

Mr. Sharples

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I misled the House and the hon. Gentleman I do, of course, apologise and withdraw. It is quite true that the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the 25 people—are not strictly sub judice. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. I am advised, however, that it would have been improper for me to have made any comment about those cases whilst the other cases connected with them are proceeding because it is likely that the matters which the hon. Gentleman raised are likely to be referred to in court in connection with the other cases.

Mr. Davis

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has withdrawn the suggestion that was made. I am grateful to him.