HC Deb 27 July 1972 vol 841 cc2027-8
1. Mr. George Cunningham

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of the report of Mr. Michael Zander in the June issue of the Criminal Law Review, a copy of which is in his possession, he will give fresh instructions to the Metropolitan Police and guidance to other police authorities on the rights of persons being questioned to have access to a lawyer.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle)

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a Question by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 15th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 368.]

Mr. Cunningham

Does the Minister accept that his predecessor told me in January that he had no information of the number of cases in which access to a lawyer had been denied and that in February, in spite of that fact, he did not think the matter worthy of investigation? Does he not think that especially in the Metropolitan Police area, which is under his control, the police need to be reminded that the let-out clause in the Judges' Rules about interrupting investigations should not be used to impede access to a lawyer by prisoners in their hands?

Mr. Carlisle

It is a quite clear, accepted principle that every person, at any stage of investigation, should be able to communicate with or consult privately a solicitor. That applies to people in custody as well as to those not in custody, provided that in such a case no unreasonable delay or hindrance is caused. The Commissioner of Police will always investigate any complaint brought to him about refusal to be allowed to consult a solicitor.

Mr. John Fraser

Does not Mr. Zander's article show a disturbing rate of 74 per cent. refusals to consult a lawyer? In the circumstances will the Home Office institute an urgent inquiry into the difference between the theoretical rights of citizens in the hands of the police and the exercise of those rights in practice, so that when we look at the Criminal Law Revision Committee's proposals we shall have a balanced view about the rights of the community and the rights of the individual?

Mr. Carlisle

The hon. Member referred to the figure of 74 per cent. but that relates to those who had not contacted a solicitor, which is somewhat different from those who were refused permission to contact a solicitor. The arrangements will be reviewed in the light of our consideration of the Criminal Law Revision Committee's Report on Evidence.

Forward to