HC Deb 17 May 1976 vol 911 cc954-6
45. Mr. Sedgemore

asked the Attorney-General what advice he has given to the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with proceedings in connection with actions for criminal libel.

48. Mr. McCrindle

asked the Attorney-General what advice he has given to the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with proceedings relating to actions for criminal libel.

49. Mr. Madden

asked the Attorney-General what advice he has given the Director of Public Prosecutions over criminal libel actions against newspapers and magazines.

The Attorney-General

I have given no advice to the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with proceedings for criminal libel. We have discussed the proceedings which have been commenced against Private Eye, and in particular the suggestion that the Director should take them over. We are agreed that the public interest does not require him to do so.

Mr. Sedgemore

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what public purpose this serves by bringing into the public domain the private squabbles between fringe bankers and satirical magazines?

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to a case under way, it is sub judice.

Mr. Sedgemore

I am referring to private squabbles generically and not individually, Mr. Speaker. What do the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Government intend to do about the criminal libel law, which is an affront to the Bill of Rights and a totally unnecessary invasion of the liberties of the individual and the freedom of Press?

The Attorney-General

I must have regard to your ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but if my hon. Friend is asking me about amendment of the law I must point out that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and not for me.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

Did not the recent report of the Royal Commission on Defamation dispel the widely-held belief that a prosecution required action by the Director of Public Prosecutions? Can it not be brought in the normal way, like any other criminal prosecution, by the local police? Is it not untrue to say that such a prosecution needs the Attorney-General's fiat or action by the DPP, and is it not like any other ordinary criminal offence?

The Attorney-General

I was not aware that there was any such widely-held belief. If there was, it was wrong.

Mr. Madden

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the use of criminal libel proceedings can be embraced by godfather-like figures in the City and big business to silence the Press? Would he not further agree that Press freedom could be defended and enhanced if our archaic libel laws, civil and criminal, were urgently reformed?

The Attorney-General

The Faulks Committee, which has reported on this issue, does not propose that the law should be changed. On the general question raised by my hon. Friend, it is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to put forward proposals for amendment of the criminal law, and not for me.

Mr. Lipton

Without reference to any proceedings which may be pending, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he does not think that the time has come when proceedings for criminal libel should be undertaken only by the Director of Public Prosecutions or, if not, abolished altogether?

The Attorney-General

I can only repeat that it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.