§ 30. Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Attorney-General whether he will cause an investigation to be made to ascertain why, in view of the fact that Detective Inspector Ronald Larby was found guilty of several offences whilst serving in the police force, that he then resigned, thatprima-facieevidence exists and was submitted to the authorities in January, February, March and July, 1972, by Mrs. 619 K. Bruce of Essex showing that ex-Detective Inspector Larby was guilty of unlawful entry and theft, the Director of Public Prosecutions refuses to prosecute.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson)No, Sir. This matter has been fully considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions who has come to the conclusion that the evidence is not strong enough to justify criminal proceedings for unlawful entry or theft, and I agree with his opinion.
§ Mr. LewisDid the Attorney-General look at these papers personally? Is he aware that this detective-inspector has an unsavoury record, has committed criminal offences and planted a gun on one of my constituents for which offence he is now serving a term of imprisonment? Is it right that the evidence which has come out since the trial should be used against a man who is now in prison because of the irregularities and illegalities of a crooked detective-inspector?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe criminal allegation to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his Question referred to that made by Mrs. Bruce. As I understand it, the allegation was that this man entered her house without permission—she was a lady with whom he had been associating—helped himself to a glass of whisky and, after writing a note, left. In those circumstances the Director did not think he would prosecute.
§ Mr. LewisOn a point of order. Since the Attorney-General has not told the House the facts, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.