12. Mr. C. Fannellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make compensation to Ronald John Barker arising from inquiries at the request of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West following this man's acquittal at a second trial.
§ Mr. CarlisleI have considered the facts of this case most carefully, but I have been unable to find such grounds as would justify my right hon. Friend making an ex gratia payment from public funds.
§ Mr. PannellIs the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I shall hardly be satisfied with that reply, bearing in mind that my first protest was made in January last year, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was Home Secretary, when I was asking for an inquiry following the first trial, which was most unsatisfactory? Is he aware that the man was acquitted at the second trial, but because of a sin of omission in court, £60 was mulcted from him towards the costs of his defence on his acquittal? I should have thought that that would have been refunded. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that the general situation is completely unsatisfactory, as the Court of Appeal found, because in effect the Lord Chief Justice reconvened the court on a second occasion after finding the evidence unsatisfactory, which was the ground on which I had proceeded all along? [HON. MEMBERS : "Too long."] I am sorry. This concerns one individual, and I will make myself heard. Eighty per cent. of the Questions asked in the House are asked by 30 per cent. of the Members. I do not know when I last asked a Question. I do not expect to be interrupted. [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] This House is useless unless it can defend the position of men who have been wronged. [Interruption.'] Vol. 821
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is not the time to discuss the matter, but I find that interruptions always lengthen contributions.
§ Mr. CarlisleThe right hon. Gentleman asked me rather a large number of questions in his supplementary. It is not the case that £60 was mulcted from the man by an omission of the court. When he was convicted at his first trial the judge ordered that he should pay that sum towards his legal representation under legal aid, as allowed for in the Criminal Justice Act, 1967. He was acquitted at the retrial this year. The court had power to deal with that sum then had it wished, but I understand that no application was made for it to consider repayment of the £60. As to the right hon. Gentleman's other questions, the man appealed and time was given, for further inquiries to be made. As a. result of those further inquiries, additional evidence was put before the Court of Appeal, on the strength of which the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesIs not this a most important issue, about which there is concern in the city of Leeds? It is probably inappropriate to follow the matter up at Question Time, so could not we have a full statement of the facts so that the House can consider the matter, which is a talking point in the city of Leeds about which people feel very strongly?
§ Mr. CarlisleWe should not get the matter out of proportion. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who has pursued the question with great vigour, has his right to apply to Mr. Speaker for an Adjournment debate on it should he wish. I cannot believe that it would be right to ask for statements in the House every time a man who had been convicted at his first trial was acquitted on a retrial ordered by the Court of Appeal.