HC Deb 15 January 1979 vol 960 cc1312-4
28. Mr. Michael Latham

asked the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement on the use of his discretion regarding charges preferred under the Official Secrets Acts following the comments of the trial judge in the case of Regina v. Aubrey, Berry and Campbell.

31. Mr. Christopher Price

asked the Attorney-General if, in the light of the comments of the judge in the case of Regina v. Aubrey, Berry and Campbell, he will make a statement about the use of his discretion in cases brought under the Official Secrets Acts.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin)

I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to the House on 13th December 1976 and 13th November 1978. In exercising my discretion under the Official Secrets Acts I have always considered each case on its merits, taking into consideration judicial interpretation of those Acts. I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Latham

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how it was in the public interest to sanction charges under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act and then to withdraw all four of them during the course of the trial? As the trial judge himself described those charges as inappropriate, and oppressive. was not the whole case a disaster for the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his office from start to finish?

The Attorney-General

On the evidence available to me when I made my decision it was perfectly appropriate to bring those charges and to give consent to the bringing of them. However, evidence which comes to light in the course of a case not infrequently changes the view that one takes.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Infrequently."]—Not infrequently—otherwise everyone charged would invariably be found guilty. The trial judge did not describe those charges as oppressive—he was widely misquoted—and after full argument he declined to hold that section 1 applied only to espionage and sabotage. His use of the word "oppresive" was solely in the context of the reversal of the burden of proof which he held to be obligatory, even though the prosecution throughout the case expressed its willingness to accept the full normal burden of proof. In view of that ruling I decided, in fairness to the defendants, to authorise the withdrawal of charges which would have required them to prove their innocence.

Mr. Price

But does my right hon. and learned Friend really think that the cause of official secrets is best served by vast public show trials of this kind? Is he aware that one of the criteria laid down in a very good book by his junior is disproportionate public expenditure? Does he think that the hundreds of thousands of pounds poured into the pockets of already well-to-do lawyers in this case served those purposes? On the Gouriet case he gave the House a full long statement on the reasons for his discretion. Why did he not do so in this case?

The Attorney-General

I have already told the House that, on the material available to me, which indicated that the subject matter of the case—a great deal of which consisted of evidence in camera—was matter of national security, the disclosure of which could seriously damage national security, it was perfectly appropriate that the case should be brought. As I said, in the course of the case evidence was brought by the defence and questions were put which caused me to review the matter at a certain stage and to take a different line on the section 1 charges. The defendants were convicted on the section 2 charges, and the learned judge, in remarks that he made when sentencing them, clearly indicated that he took a serious view of those matters.

Mr. Brittan

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, whatever the rights and wrongs of what he has just said, he got into great difficulties in that case and that those difficulties would not arise in future if the Government were at last to introduce legislation to reform the Official Secrets Act? The report suggesting that course has been on the shelf for a long time. Is it not time that the Government did something about it?

The Attorney-General

The question of reforming the Official Secrets Acts is for the Home Secretary, but even if the Acts had been amended and reformed in accordance with the report of the Franks committee and the Government's White Paper this case would still have been one that it would be right and proper to bring.