CROSSMAN MEMOIRS (Hansard, 19 June 1975)

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a definite and—in view of your remarks earlier—delicate but urgent matter of public importance which should gain precedence over the Orders of the Day. It is a matter which offends against common sense and natural justice. It is a matter which, unless it is debated in the House, could bring one of the high Officers of this House into disrepute. It is a matter where a large and powerful newspaper is privileged, and where, therefore—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is really referring to the action of the Attorney-General with regard to the Crossman Memoirs.

§ Mr. Fraser
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is now clear to the whole House that that is precisely to what I am referring.

§ Mr. Speaker
In that case I will not allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed, because I rule that that is sub judice. A writ has been issued for an injunction in this case. If the right hon. Gentleman tries to refer to that case I must tell him now I will not allow it to be further discussed in the House today.

§ Mr. Fraser
Further to that point, Mr. Speaker, the writ is not to be before the Queen's Bench until 24th June. Surely, it is proper that the House should now—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am very sorry. I am bound in this matter by the attitude taken by the House to the Report of the Select Committee. There is also the discretion vested in me by the Standing Orders. In my view, this matter clearly is one which is sub judice and it would be quite wrong for the House to discuss it.

Mr. Heifer
Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance in relation to the question of publication not of the book but of those parts of it which have already been published in the Sunday Times, which are common knowledge, and which are available for hon. Members to read? Is it not possible then, for us to debate those aspects of the already published material? It seems to me strange that we are not able to discuss these matters because of 1687 an injunction which is intended to try to stop publication when, in fact, part has already been published. It is a most strange situation.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am very sorry. I would wish to help the House if I could and I have a certain discretion vested in me. But this is a case in which a writ has been issued for an injunction and the matter is to be heard on Tuesday 24th June. In my view, it would be quite improper for the House to discuss that case until it has been heard. Of course, the House can discuss it in general or in particular after the case has been heard, but I must rule firmly on this today.

§ Mr. Aitken
Mr. Speaker, does your ruling really mean that the Attorney-General can effectively gag and silence Parliament by the exercise of political action dressed up as a judicial decision?

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
Tammany Hall!

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That observation is quite improper.
What has happened is that the Attorney-General, exercising the powers vested in him, has taken certain action. That involves a case coming before the courts. Until the case is tried and a 1688 decision is reached by the court it would be quite improper, in my view, for the House to discuss it, because the discussion would be related to that particular case.
On previous occasions I have ruled perhaps more widely than my predecessors on the sub judice rule where matters of general interest have been discussed. But in this particular case, on this particular point, I have ruled, that the matter is sub judice.