§ 35. Mr. Roseasked the Attorney-General whether he caused any inquiry to be made into the allegations contained in documents sent to him by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, before permitting the Director of Public Prosecutions to carry on proceedings at the Central Criminal Court against Mr. Peter Hain.
§ The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer)The documents submitted by my hon. Friend, both before and after the commencement of Mr. Hain's trial, were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and passed by him to the police. An investigation was not then considered practicable in view of the fact that the persons named as having made the allegations are concerned as defendants in pending proceedings. It appears from the documents in question that Mr. Hain himself was aware of the allegations, and could have sought an adjournment had he considered it to be in his interests.
§ Mr. RoseAs documents, whether authentic or forged, and photographs undoubtedly exist which implicate a large South African corporation in the plot to smear members of the Liberal Party, was it not incumbent on the DPP to ensure that investigations were made in 27 relation to the possession of those documents by a named person before proceedings were brought against Mr. Hain? Will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that inquiries will be made into the allegations against the corporation, namely, the Anglo-American Company?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI have explained why it was not possible to proceed with the investigations at that stage. It does not follow from that that they will not be proceeded with subsequently.
§ Mr. FinsbergDoes the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, in spite of the smear campaign by certain quarters, the result of the case was a vindication of British justice?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI do agree.