ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW (Hansard, 27 October 1971)

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the officials and staff of the House, for keeping you here yet another half-hour. However, as you and they know, unfortunately there is no other way of raising this matter. I could, of course, give up the Adjournment, but that would not be welcomed in view of our known procedure.
I wish to raise the subject of the interference by the Attorney-General, the other Law Officers of the Crown, and the Executive with our judiciary system.
Time does not permit me to go into all the cases, but there have been a number of strange happenings recently. I refer briefly to the Sunday Telegraph secrets case. We are still waiting for the taxed costs to be published. How much has it cost the taxpayer? I should like the Attorney-General to give us some idea of the cost.
There was the John Bloom trial. There were many rumours about what went on behind the scenes in that case.
There was the James Doyle case. He confessed to being guilty of spying, but no action was taken.
The most recent and glaring case concerned Mr. Oleg Lyalin. We all know that he was alleged to be a Russian trade representative and/or spy or a spy and/or trade representative. I do not know which way round it should be. He was arrested by the British police for drunken driving and was due to come up for trial.
In the interim there was quite a lot of scandal. He was evidently having some liaison with a beautiful Russian blonde. It was also ascertained that he had been having some rather nice escapades in night clubs, and so on. Then, strangely, when the time came for his trial he defected, and we then had his admission that he was a Russian spy and had been guilty of sabotage activities against the State. Then, coincidentally, just before his trial was due to come on at Marlborough Street, lo and behold, rumours began to leak that the prosecution was to be withdrawn.
The sub judice rule prevented me putting down Questions on this matter. But, as soon as the inspired leak became 2035 a reality, and the case was withdrawn, I put down a series of Questions on the Friday before the House was due to reassemble on Monday, 18th October.
Again, rather strangely, on the Friday, the Questions being due to be answered the following Monday, a Press reporter from the Daily Telegraph contacted me and said that he knew that I had tabled these Questions. He said that he had been in touch with the Attorney-General's office, that Mr. Hetherington, the Attorney-General's clerk, had told him that these cases were not going ahead, and that he had the answers to my Questions. I said that I could not believe this, because this was not the custom and practice of the House of Commons or of Ministers. I said that Ministers always refused to talk about Questions which were due to be answered on the Floor of the House. Sure enough, in that Saturday's Daily Telegraph was a complete answer to all my Questions.
During the discussion with this journalist, I gave it as my opinion, I confess, that the Law Officers, the Government or someone in an official position were twisting the law. The Attorney-General—to whom, by the way, I wrote—said that he had got his clerk to issue this statement to deny what I had said about twisting the law. But my saying that did not give the Attorney-General the right to provide a newspaper with a complete answer to all the Questions. This has never happened before.
This man, who is a self-confessed spy and saboteur and, according to the wording of the Attorney-General in answer to my Questions, a member of a murder squad, is not tried. There have not been such phoney excuses for this in all the history of our legal system. We were told that he would not be tried because the Attorney-General had been advised by the security people and the Director of Public Prosecutions that there was a danger to the man's life. I do not believe it, the general public do not believe it and I do not think that the Attorney-General believes it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman never said that he had consulted the police. The Kray twins, who were tried and convicted as murderers, and the Richardson gang of cut-throats and crooks are both now serving long terms 2036 of imprisonment. They had actually threatened witnesses in trials and had murdered, but the Attorney-General did not say that their trials should not go ahead because he had fears about the witnesses. He relied upon the excellent efficiency of the British police to ensure that the witnesses were properly protected.
This Russian could have been properly protected by the police had his trial gone ahead. I understand that it is legally possible, with the approval of the Defence Council, to hold the trial in camera. It could have been held somewhere without the knowledge of the general public or notice of it could have been kept back until the last moment. So it was all phoney. It was all twisted. I again emphasise that the Government twisted the law.
Many loyal British citizens, with fine records in the Services and medals for gallantry, are sometimes pulled up after military reunions for driving under the influence of drink. They have been charged, have been found guilty and have had to pay the penalty. Doctors and probably some lawyers who have done nothing wrong and caused no harm to the State or people have, rightly, had to pay the price of committing an offence against the law.
The Attorney-General not only could but should have gone ahead with this trial because then we could have shown the Russians, the British people and the world that British justice is not only done but is seen to be done. The penalty for this offence is a fine of £50 or £100. That would not have worried Mr. Oleg Lyalin because the Government could have paid it or it could have come from the fees and hand-outs he is getting from the Government.
We are told that Mr. Lyalin cannot go to court because his life may be in danger. In that case he would not need a driving licence because he cannot travel around. So that would not matter much to him. The greatest penalty which could be imposed would be a fine and the withdrawal of his driving licence which he cannot hold and which is no use to him.
I have tried to get a reply to the question of how many other people have had such cases withdrawn, but, as usual, the Government, their advisers and the 2037 Attorney-General have twisted and evaded the issue. Certainly no cases have been withdrawn at Marlborough Street. I want to know how many decent honest people have been prosecuted, for good legitimate reasons, for committing this offence and why the cases against them have not been withdrawn. In this case the charge against a man who is known to be a traitor and who, in the words of the Attorney-General, has associated with murderers and possibly is a murderer himself with withdrawn.
This is a shocking case and the Attorney-General should deal with it. I ask him to look into it and to tell us the truth about what has happened.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan (Cardigan)
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has done the House a great service by bringing this matter to its attention.
As a result of the Attorney-General stating that this case was not brought to trial because it was impossible to guarantee the life and safety of Oleg Lyalin, the matter has been elevated to an unbelievable dimension. If the late Ian Fleming had included such a situation as this in one of his novels, it would have been regarded as incredible; he would never have dared to concoct such a plot.
This was not the case of a tiddly Russian being allowed to get away with it in the interests of diplomatic absolution. By giving such an explanation as he has, the Attorney-General has exposed the whole legal system to ridicule, because this must be the only case in this century when the courts of the United Kingdom have accepted that they were not in a position to guarantee the life and safety of a defendant. We have had thousands of violent, vicious, evil men tried, but never have the courts acknowledged their impotence in such a situation.
The questions to which the Attorney-General must reply are these. Were the police consulted in this matter? Was it considered that protection could be given if police in numbers of tens, hundreds or thousands had been deployed? Could not the case have been moved outside London? Could not the case have been heard in camera? Was there any question 2038 other than the safety of the defendant in issue? Was there any question of insufficiency of evidence?
If it was merely the question of the safety of the defendant, clearly for that day in question the rule of law in the United Kingdom was in abeyance.

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson)
I have listened to speeches of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) in the House for about 17½ years. I have heard his attitude to the law and those who administer the law, so I am not surprised at some of the things he said. He should reflect that it is appropriate to be accurate in the things one says on a matter such as this.
I was not Attorney-General at the time of the Sunday Telegraph case, the Bloom case, the Kray case or the Richardson case. I merely bring those matters to his attention.
I also heard the speech of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan). As I recollect, he served for a time at the Home Office. I do not know to what extent he was given any responsibilities when he served in that particular Department of State, but as he held office there he should have been prepared to measure his words very carefully before making any statement in the House in joining in at the last minute in an Adjournment debate.
I received categorical advice from the security services that there was personal danger to Oleg Lyalin in bringing him to court—I stress bringing him to court—while he was in court, and taking him away from court to whence he had come.
Any trial, whether it be held on a particular day or adjourned to another day, must at some time take place. It must take place at a certain place and time, because notice has to be given to other witnesses, and the Press and the public are entitled to be there.
Therefore, one cannot say that the case could have been adjourned. What would have had to happen is that at some time, whether or not the trial was heard in camera, that man would have had to be brought to a court and taken away from it. I accept that in theory it is possible for a magistrates' court to hear a case in 2039 camera if the interests of justice completely require it—perhaps they may. It is at the discretion of a court whether a trial should be heard in camera.
I was told that the anxieties of it were of bringing him to the court and taking him away from it, and the safeguarding of the concealment of his whereabouts before trial and where he went after trial.
Let me make it quite clear that on the advice I received I can well understand why some people would like to have seen Oleg Lyalin and seen him taken to court. I well understand that there are certain people who would like to decry Oleg Lyalin, to allege matters against him and to denigrate him. I well appreciate that certain people so desire. But when this advice was given to me, it was advice categorically given. I did not at first accept it. I wanted to examine it carefully. I was finally satisfied that the advice was explicit and categorical. In those circumstances, it was wholly impossible for me to ignore that advice. Therefore, the position arose that Oleg Lyalin should not personally attend court.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
Will the Attorney-General give way?

§ The Attorney-General
I will consider when I will give way in a little while, in view of the speech that the hon. Gentleman made.
What then was there to be done? On the facts, Oleg Lyalin had been bailed to appear to answer charges. They were not summonses; they were charges. He was bailed to appear, and when a person is so charged and bailed the court insists on personal appearance. Again I have to bear in mind, in my position, the principle of a presumption of innocence which a man, in any circumstances and whatever the charges levelled against him, is entitled to have taken into account. I had at that time no knowledge of his plea, and the first of these charges was made under Section 6—a little different from the other charges, which were those of refusing to take certain tests. The first of these charges, as I say, was made under Section 6. If he pleaded guilty, it was not possible for the case to be dealt with by letter. It was possible for it to be done through an advocate, but it was only within the discretion of the 2040 court and it would have had to come before the court, and there was no guarantee that the court would have agreed. I do not believe it right that any accused person should be pressurised to force him into making a plea.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I am sure the Attorney-General understands that I do not impugn his integrity at all, but only his judgment and, indeed, the information that he received. He well appreciates how grave a matter this is—that this is probably the only case this century in which British courts have been so impotent. Did he consider whether the safety of Oleg Lyalin could have been guaranteed with any reasonable deployment of police officers?

§ The Attorney-General
I have answered the hon. Gentleman. The categorical advice that I received was that if Oleg Lyalin were brought from where he was to that court and thereafter were taken from that court, those facts would involve him in personal danger. All those circumstances were examined by me, and that was the categorical advice given to me.
Therefore, as I said, if he pleaded guilty it would have been within the discretion of the court whether they would have agreed to hear the case in his absence. It is certainly not right to pressure any person to plead guilty if he does not so wish. If he had desired to plead not guilty, the court could in theory have allowed the case to proceed with an advocate, but at Marlborough Street they never have heard a "not guilty" plea without a personal appearance.
Further, if he were unable to appear personally and nevertheless the trial proceeded in his absence, we would have been depriving him of the right to elect for trial by jury; we would have been depriving him of the right to give evidence; we would have been depriving him of the right to instruct an advocate as the evidence proceeded and was given by other witnesses. Such a procedure, if it were forced upon an accused person by the personal danger in which I was told he was, and which would oblige him to stay away from the court where he was being tried, would, in my view, have made any such trial wholly repugnant to our ideas of justice or of giving a fair deal or a fair trial to an accused.
2041 It was obvious to me in those circumstances that the only course was to withdraw these charges, and I say that I would do it again. I well accept that these charges, even if they had been proven, would probably have resulted in a small monetary fine and a disqualification from driving. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not have taken the step I took in those circumstances—obviously, comment could arise—unless I was absolutely satisfied that the man could not and should not appear at that court to stand his trial.
I come now to one or two other matters and the questions raised by the hon. Member for Cardigan. I made my decision that the charges should be withdrawn on Thursday, 14th October. Prior to that time, the hon. Member for West Ham, North had, I understand, been making inquiries because he wished to put down a Question. After 14th October, when the charges were withdrawn, notices of Questions were received at my Department from the Table Office; that was on 15th October, and these included the Questions which were subsequently answered on the following Monday.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
On the Saturday, to the newspapers.

§ The Attorney-General
On the Monday—if the hon. Gentleman would pause to listen rather than talk. Between 2.30 p.m. and 3 p.m. the Daily Telegraph telephoned to the Law Officers' Department and informed it that the hon. Gentleman had alleged that the Attorney-General had been twisting the law in withdrawing the charges, and also that another hon. Member had made a statement at lunchtime, on the radio, I believe, suggesting that the law had been bent to suit Government purposes.
In the circumstances, those statements having been made out of Parliament, the legal secretary to the Law Officers' Department, with my authority, commented by denying that there had been any twisting of the law and explaining the reasons for the Attorney-General's decision to withdraw. But for the fact that he was told that public statements had been made by the hon. Gentlemen outside Parliament, there would have been no statement from my office. However, when public statements are made by hon. Members outside the House, 2042 prior to Questions being asked, statements can, and in my view should, be made in reply. Persons should not be able merely to make public statements outside the House of Commons and then deny the right of any responsible Minister or officer to reply to them. So, but for the fact—

§ Mr. Lewis
No. It was not until the Attorney-General—

§ The Attorney-General
No, I will not give way. The case was withdrawn on 14th October.

§ Mr. Lewis
I did not know that.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must play the game.

§ Mr. Lewis
On a point of order, then, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Attorney-General is implying that I am not telling the truth. In fact, I did not know that the case had been withdrawn until the Press reporter—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he is implying that I am not telling the truth.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Lewis
It is a point of order.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Lewis
On a point of order, then, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for any hon. Member, be he the Attorney-General or anyone else, to imply that another hon. Member is telling a lie? That is what he is doing. I did not know that the case was withdrawn until the Press told me. How did I know?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Until a parliamentary breach is committed, there is no point of order.

§ The Attorney-General
Because my Department was informed that statements had been made outside Parliament, on the 15th, the replies were made. It was on 14th October—the fact was reported in the Press—that the charges were withdrawn at Marlborough Street Court. On 15th October my Department was informed that public statements were being made by the hon. Gentleman, and by 2043 another hon. Member, saying that there had been a twisting and bending of the law to suit Governmental purposes. It was for that reason, and only for that reason, that those public statements were made by the Law Department.

§ Mr. Lewis
No.

§ The Attorney-General
I appreciate what the hon. Member has said about the exercise of my discretion. I assure him and the House that I shall do as my predecessors have done, and take into account only the public interest and the interests of justice when making these decisions. I shall certainly not be affected 2044 in any way by any personal or political considerations. I took the decision in this case because of categorical and explicit advice given to me, and in the circumstances I was entirely satisfied—and I remain so—that there was no alternative but that the charges should be withdrawn.