HC Deb 29 March 1971 vol 814 cc1319-28

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Monro.]

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)

I am glad that I have been successful in the Ballot for this debate and can publicly air the facts about this case. I am particularly pleased since the M.P. of the lady concerned is the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), a senior Minister who is, naturally, precluded from the privilege of an Adjournment debate. It would be monstrous if public exposure of this case in this House went by default.

The value of the British Press and television in shining a light into dark corners has been valuable. My own local papers, the Newcastle Journal, the Newcastle Chronicle, the Northern Echo and the Sunday Sun, have been towers of strength in conveying to the public the facts of the case. The editor of the Sunday Sun some weeks ago launched an appeal to get money to cover the legal costs to which this unfortunate mother might be put. He had less confidence than I had that the Government would accept their responsibilities because he has set this appeal in motion. I hope that my appeal tonight will not fall on stony ground and that the money which has so far been raised by the Sunday Sun can be donated to a children's charity. I have nothing but the highest regard for the media for insisting on bringing the Desramault baby case into the open.

In the leading article on 5th March The Guardian said under the headline of "The Anglo-French Baby": If an English court ruled that M. Desramault of Lens was harbouring gold bars that did not belong to him, Interpol would have the bars back in a trice. But, as he is only harbouring a baby there is nothing, apparently, that the law can do. That the law (or part of it) cares more for property than it does for people is a well-known disgrace. But the High Court's impotence in the case of the Desramault baby is only one of the many extraordinary and haphazard cruelties which have been inflicted on the baby and its mother. I propose to develop those excellent sentiments. Never in my time in this House have I been called upon to deal with a more heart-rending case. I want to place on record my immense admiration for the manner in which Linda Desramault has borne her personal tragedy. She is without doubt a most courageous and able young woman, a credit indeed to her generation. She has had the good fortune to be ably supported by a good home and excellent parents.

The saga of the Desramault baby starts on 7th December last when the justices at West Castle Ward Petty Sessional Division of Northumberland, in the name of British justice, perpetrated on Mrs. Linda Desramault the most grotesque injustice that can be imposed on any mother; namely, they deprived her of her baby. I was in the first place drawn to this by compassion. My reasons for seeking this debate are twofold.

First, I want to ask the Government to take steps to create a position whereby it is unlikely that a similar situation could ever again arise. I am determined that if it is at all possible no other young woman should suffer the misery of Linda Desramault. Her mother, a gentle lady, Mrs. Halliday, tells me that when she goes to wake Linda in the morning to go to college her cheeks are wet with tears that she has shed in her sleep. From this it is possible to realise the great stress that this young woman has undergone as a direct result of this diabolical decision of the magistrates.

Therefore, would it not be advisable to send out a circular to all magistrates dealing with custody cases and, in particular, where a decision could involve the child being taken outside the jurisdiction of the British courts, to provide that the lay magistrates must always consult the clerk of the court, who is legally qualified. I stress "must". I know it is difficult for the Lord Chancellor to dictate to magistrates, but it is not any use sending out a circular unless there is an insistence on consultation. We all know that if the magistrates are pigheaded they will not consult the clerk, and the clerk cannot in any circumstances insist on consultation.

It might well be argued that had the solicitor of this young lady applied for a stay of execution the unhappy saga of events would never have taken place. This I know to be true from my personal discussion with the Lord Chancellor. However, had the magistrates consulted their clerk, as I suggest should be obligatory on them, it would surely have been the duty of the clerk that day to point out to the magistrates the question of the removal from jurisdiction pending appeal. Clearly the clerk, not having been consulted, did not have this opportunity.

Another point arises in broad principle. Should not a case in which legal aid is granted carry such aid to a final conclusion—that is, the obtaining of justice? If it is necessary to go to a foreign court, why should legal aid cease at the shores of the United Kingdom? I hope that the Solicitor-General will give consideration to this point.

I want to develop the facts in respect of the Desramault baby. I have written and spoken to the Lord Chancellor about this case. I wrote on 17th February inquiring whether the magistrates had been properly advised, and questioning their future. Although the Lord Chancellor has condemned the magistrates' decision, he said in reply to me that to remove them from the bench would be the worst possible precedent. I would not dissent from that view, particularly in a case in which the conscience of the individuals concerned should have some bearing.

I repeat that I am grateful to the Press for the public-spirited way in which it has exposed the shortcomings of the British judicial system, and I want to commend the Sun newspaper for its front page lead on Thursday, 25th February, headed "Get off the bench". I quote from it: There is only one more case that ought to be judged by magistrates Mrs. Dorothy Peile and Mr. Mitchell—their own. There is just one more decision they ought to make on the bench—to get off it and to stay off it". I feel that I have a right, nay a duty, to say to the Lord Chancellor, through the Solicitor-General, that if he does not remove these two magistrates, surely they must never again have the opportunity to adjudicate in a custody case, for what confidence could any mother, or, for that matter, any father, have about getting a fair decision?

I want now to make some comments about the public's attitude towards court decisions, and this one in particular. By and large, I think it is fair to say—I do not think anyone here would disagree with me—that the public seem to regard magistrates as having the wisdom of Solomon. It must, of course, be borne in mind that almost every Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen have never seen the inside of a court. So people generally accept that magistrates reach their decisions on good reasons. It is not surprising, then, that Mrs. Desramault is suffering a secondary injustice from public innuendo. "Ah," they say," there is more to this than we know. The magistrates would never have given the baby to a father who had never even seen the child unless—unless there were some compelling reason." Then they say, "She must be an alcoholic, or a sex maniac, or a drug addict. Or there must be some equally awful compelling reason why the magistrates should have reached this decision." The only way this secondary injustice can be removed would be by publication of the transcript of the magistrates' court hearing of 7th December last year. I would, therefore, ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at this suggestion, unusual though it may be, as a distinct possibility in the interests of doing justice, and silencing wagging tongues.

I want now to quote from the transcript of the shorthand note in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Group A, when the Vice-Chancellor, Sir John Pennycuick, quoted the magistrates' judgment and their reasons. He said they stated in their judgment: We were impressed by the sincerity of the husband and were concerned by the instability of the wife. With great respect, I would suggest that the countless thousands of people who watched the television programme "This Week" some 10 days ago will have formed a vastly different impression of sincerity and instability from that impression of those two magistrates on that dark day in December, and, if my post is anything to go by, few share the magistrates' views, for, remarkable though it may be, on this issue I have yet to receive an anti-Linda letter. I think the House would agree that that is contrary to the normal experience of an M.P., who is usually subject to a barrage of "anti" letters on any issue. The "pros" seldom ever bother to put pen to paper.

I want to quote again from the appeal transcript: Through the Justices' clerk she"— that is, through Mrs. Desramault's solicitor— stated that she wanted to appeal and further she asked for at least one week's grace. The magistrates' clerk transmitted these messages, but the magistrates decided that the order must be drawn up forthwith in order that the father could fly back with Caroline the same afternoon. There was no formal application for a stay pending appeal. It has been said by counsel that such application might be implied by what was said to the clerk. I would submit to the House that that was a clear inference for counsel to make at the appeal. Surely our courts are not so hidebound that justice has to be adminstered to the letter, that there can be no spirit at all? I would have thought that when this young lady's solicitor said "I want a week's grace" it would have been reasonable to accept that as requesting a stay of execution which no magistrate could have refused. Or was it that the magistrates were so desperate to have their decision carried out and this child whisked away out of the country that they did not want to listen?

I now turn to the Prime Minister's sorry, shoddy part in this. When, on 28th February, I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, some of my colleagues suggested that I was worse than mad to set up a perfect public relations exercise for a Tory Prime Minister. I cared not, because I hoped that the Prime Minister would guarantee to Mrs. Desramault all her costs from State funds. But what happened? The right hon. Gentleman went to Gosforth Park Hotel on Saturday, 13th March. He offered tea and sympathy to Linda, and that was it. It was nothing short of a squalid, indecent publicity stunt trading on the feelings of a grievously wronged young mother—hardly the actions of a man worthy of being Prime Minister of our nation.

It did not need the intervention of a Prime Minister to arrange for an aggrieved British subject to be seen by the British Embassy in Paris. Surely, the purpose of British embassies is to see to the needs of British subjects abroad who may be in distress. I know that there are people who do not believe that this is so and think that embassies are for junketing and flummery, but I do not accept that. The basic purpose of British embassies is to look after British citizens.

Let the Prime Minister now put things right and atone for his despicable conduct two weeks ago by taking notice of the Daily Mail leader of 25th February, from which I quote: But because the court foolishly allowed little Caroline to be taken out of the country, the authorities"— that means the Government— are bleating: 'What can we do?' We'll tell them. They can pay all Mrs. Desramault's costs and give her the best international lawyer in Britain to see her through. The Government is not normally slow to throw our money about. Here is one case where it should 'spend, spend, spend'. There must be no cheeseparing when a mother's right to her child is at stake. I commend the words of that leading article to the Prime Minister. I say earnestly to the Government that they should take heed and restore some confidence in Britain and in British justice.

I conclude by reiterating what I wrote to the Prime Minister on 28th February: I put it to you very seriously that compassion and humanity should take precedence over protocol in an endeavour to bring about justice for Mrs. Desramault. It may well be that the Solicitor-General cannot answer all the questions that I have asked this evening, but I sincerely hope that I shall get a good, considered, written reply to the points that he may not feel inclined to answer tonight. Let compassion at this late stage at least come to the aid of Linda Desramault.

12.18 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe)

The House has plainly been considering a case that is obviously extremely distressing and calls for sympathy from all sides of the House. Any of these tug-of-war cases are inevitably harrowing and when they have the international complications that this one involves, they are truly heartrending.

It is plainly right for the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) to have raised this case as he has, it is plainly right for him to have paid tribute to the extent to which the media have reported and commented upon the facts of this case, but, although I regret to say this, I suggest that it is unworthy of the hon. Member to the seriousness of this case and the reality of the difficulties in which all parties find themselves to have devoted so much of his presentation of the case to what developed into a crude political attack on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to have departed from a discussion of the issues involved without any appreciation of the complications that underlie them.

There are many questions and the hon. Member has left me 10 minutes of the 30 minutes available in which to answer them, so I shall not be able to deal with more than a few.

The hon. Member started by criticising the decision of the justices and the fact that no stay was granted. Those are two matters about which there is scope for comment and criticism, but again he does less than justice to the way in which cases of this kind are handled in our courts in presenting the outcome of this case in such extravagant language.

I do not stand here to uphold the decision of the justices, but nor do I think it does justice to them and their colleagues who deal with many thousands of cases of this kind to refer to "diabolical decisions" and the "perpetration of the most grotesque injustice" and to suggest that it was part of a conscious plan on the part of the magistrates' court to arrive at this decision. As I say, I do not uphold the decision, because the Vice-Chancellor on appeal and the Lord Chancellor by way of comment did not seek to uphold the decision, but it is right to remember that no suggestion has ever been made from beginning to end that the justices conducted the hearing unfairly or gave their decision without proper attention and consideration.

The justices heard the evidence. They heard both parents and both grandmothers being cross-examined for over five hours, and they retired for about half an hour. Their fault was that they exercised the statutory discretion vested in them to do what they thought was best for the welfare of the child in a manner which was mistaken, but there can be no doubt that the discretion was exercised in good faith. It would be wrong on any of the lines suggested by the hon. Member to conclude that justices who discharge that duty in good faith and reach a wrong conclusion lay themselves open to censure of the kind which he has aired in the House tonight.

Many of those who have been calling for the removal of these justices will surely realise—and I think the hon. Member appreciated this—that it would be disastrous for the Executive to interfere with those who carry out judicial functions in respect of a single mistake. One is entitled to remember that over 50,000 cases involving custody of children are handled in magistrates' courts each year, the vast majority of them without giving rise to criticism, despite the difficulty of them. If there were evidence of incapacity or impropriety it would be a different matter, but these justices have been criticised without their reasons, in the sense of the evidence, being disclosed. Parliament decided long ago that in domestic proceedings of this kind—and nobody questions the wisdom of this—it would not be right to publicise the evidence or matters underlying it.

In this case, as the hon. Member has pointed out, the Vice-Chancellor's report of the judgment has been fully reported. The justices gave their reasons, and they were repeated by the Vice-Chancellor. They said that they were impressed by the sincerity of the husband and concerned about the apparent instability of the wife. They went on to make it plain that they knew what they were doing, at least by their guide posts: We believe, wherever possible, custody of the child should be given to the mother. In this case, however, after hearing evidence, we came to the conclusion that our duty to regard the welfare of the child as paramount would he best discharged by granting custody of the child to its father. That decision was overturned, no doubt rightly so, but it would be wrong to continue the pursuit of these justices in the way they have been pursued for one mistake which no doubt has been sufficiently commented upon.

It is equally unfortunate that no stay was granted, but even on that there is a conflict of evidence as to what led to the failure to grant such a stay. It is true that in the passage the hon. Member quoted it was said that the clerk was told by the wife's solicitors that she wanted to consider an appeal and wanted a week's grace. It was said that that was transmitted to the justices. That is not in accord with the version given by the justices' clerk as long ago as 4th January when he said that no such request was made and that he virtually suggested to the solicitor that she should ask for a stay and that the justices were still in attendance in anticipation of such a thing happening.

What is clear is that no application for a stay was made. What is more important, by way of confirmation of the reason for that, is that the wife's solicitor in a letter written on 7th December, the afternoon of the hearing, to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—whom I am glad to see here in her place for this important debate—made no suggestion that she had suggested any kind of application for a stay at all. That should be borne in mind. It is clear that had an application for a stay been made, the stay would no doubt have been granted and the unfortunate consequences would probably have been avoided.

The hon. Member mentioned the general rule about consultation of justices with the clerk. He knows that clerks do not normally retire with the justices so that it may be plain that the decision is that of the justices and not of the clerk, who might become unduly dominant. This has been an important principle. The suggestion that some special guidance should be given in respect of this kind of case is one that plainly could be looked at, but I felt it right to say what I have said so that someone should see that, for all that the decision was wrong, we are dealing not only with the very real human problem of Mrs. Desramault and her child but with people who have been conscientiously discharging a public duty for a number of years to the best of their ability. All this is small comfort when the child is in France. The child is the French child of a French father. The French courts are plainly entitled to exercise jurisdiction in France in respect of the child.

There is no provision for reciprocal enforcement of judgments in respect of custody proceedings. It would be difficult to produce such a situation mainly because of the different habits and views of family life taken in different countries. The view of a parent in France would be different from that taken in Germany, Switzerland, Italy or England. It is something to which one could give consideration in that some initiative might be taken in the context of international negotiations to try to produce the kind of convention recommended in The Guardian.

It was in those circumstances that the hon. Member sought the help and advice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. So far from his involvement being, as was suggested, a squalid indecent publicity stunt, my right hon. Friend undertook to find out what help and advice could be made available to her. He undertook to give her and her lawyers all the advice as to the situation in France. He ascertained that as a French national Mrs. Desramault is entitled to apply for French legal aid. The Prime Minister arranged for her to receive advice and help in choosing a French lawyer in either Paris or Lille. As a result Mrs. Desramault and her lawyer attended on the Consul-General in Paris and were shown the range of lawyers from whom they might choose. They made their choice.

Mr. Bob Brown

Mrs. Desramault could have done this without the Prime Minister's interference.

The Solicitor-General

All this was done as a result of the Prime Minister's intervention. Other suggestions have been made to my right hon. Friend that representations should be made to the French Government, but the hon. Member will appreciate that in respect of a French citizen in France—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.