§ 54. Mr. Stonehouseasked the Attorney-General how many times in the past year he has given approval for charges to be reinstituted after they had been thrown out by a magistrates' court; and how many times he has allowed a prosecution on the same charges to be commenced after the defendant had been acquitted at jury trial of the same offences.
§ The Attorney-GeneralMy responsibility for individual cases is limited to those in which the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned. The Director is not required to seek my approval for the reinstatement of charges on which a magistrates' court has refused to commit for trial. It is open to him to consult me about any individual case, but the number of cases in which he has done so could not be ascertained without disproportionate expense.
As to the second limb of the right hon. Member's Question, I refer him to the answer that I gave to his Question on 17th February 1976.
§ Mr. StonehouseWhat is the Attorney-General trying to hide? Is he not aware of the dictum of Lord Shawcross, when he was Attorney-General, that any Attorney-General of the day is responsible for the activities of the DPP? Is the House not entitled to know how many cases are reinstituted after they have been thrown out in the lower courts? Is this not a frightful waste of time of the courts? Will he now consider giving a reply and providing some justification for this obscene treatment of the courts of law?
§ The Attorney-GeneralReinstatement of charges that are suitable in relation to the evidence that has been taken on the committal proceedings are expressly authorised by Act of Parliament in conditions that appear in the Act. When that takes place, it is of course open to a defendant to take his own proceedings, to ask the court to remove that part of the indictment.