§ 31. Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to define the circumstances in which anonymity may be granted to witnesses or potential witnesses before the courts.
§ The Attorney-GeneralNo, Sir. The general rule is that a witness must be identified, but statutory provision already exists to protect the identity of witnesses in rape cases and cases concerning children and young persons. A court has the discretion, which is rarely exercised, to allow witnesses to give their evidence without their names being made public in other exceptional circumstances—for example, in blackmail cases. This discretion, which provides both flexibility and sufficient safeguard in the interests of justice, will be made statutory by clause 10 of the Contempt of Court Bill now before the House.
§ Mr. PriceThat is, of course, if that Bill goes through.
Without going into the merits of the Hollis case and whether MI5 is capable of finding spies, I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he does not think that the one issue in the Hayman case that has not been cleared up is why one particular witness in that case was allowed—when in all other respects he was on all fours with every other witness—not to have his proper name—
§ Mr. Arthur LewisHe wore the old school tie.
§ Mr. Price—disclosed to the court? Is there a rule that ensures that senior civil servants are given preference in this matter?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThere is no such rule, and the hon. Gentleman does not have his information right.
The crux of the case against O'Carroll and others, all of whom were members of the executive committee of Paedophile Information Exchange, was that they were encouraging criminal offences by publishing "contact" advertisements. Sir Peter Hayman was never a member of the executive committee, and was therefore not made a defendant in that trial. To obtain the necessary evidence of the purpose of the contact adverisements, Treasury counsel advised that witness statements should be taken from a number of persons who had advertised. Of those who as a result of this advice made witness statements three—two of whom subsequently gave evidence at the committal proceedings—had been among the eight persons who were named as possible defendants along with Sir Peter Hayman in the first report referred to in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens)—[19 March 1980, c. 139–40]. Treasury counsel had not included the name of Sir Peter Hayman as a potential witness because there was no evidence to suggest that he had ever been an advertiser or that he had attempted to obtain access to children so as to commit offences against them through his membership of PIE or otherwise.
At the committal proceedings Hayman was referred to by a number of witnesses under the name of Henderson 683 because that was the only name by which they knew him. No mention was made of him at the trial of O'Carroll under his true or assumed name, although counsel for the defence were aware of his true name and could have adduced this in evidence if they had considered it to be relevant.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopSince sending obscene material through the post, even without financial gain, is a statutory offence, are not my right hon. and learned Friend and the Director of Public Prosecutions perilously close to following the precedent set by King James II, who used prerogative action to dispense with laws with which he disagreed rather than asking Parliament to change them?
§ The Attorney-GeneralIf my hon. Friend believes that every time there is evidence of a criminal offence the person concerned should be prosecuted, he should look at the records over the past few years. In fact, in this case two others were charged in respect of much more horrifying material, and the court in its wisdom granted them each a conditional discharge.
§ Mr. Jeffrey ThomasDoes not the Attorney-General agree that the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) does not lie easily within the parameters that the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated a moment or two ago? Does not he agree that there is widespread disquiet and that the matter of chief public concern is that there appears to be a clear violation of the doctrine of equality before the law? Can he say whether others have been shielded in this way, and, if so, who and in what circumstances?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI regret that the detailed answer that I gave to the first supplementary question does not seem to have been absorbed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There is no question of Sir Peter Hayman or any of the other eight concerned in the ring with him being given special treatment. What happened was that when it was necessary to consider whether those contact advertisements were having any effect some of those who had advertised were called as witnesses. Sir Peter Hayman had not been an advertiser; he had not used the contact side of the magazine.
§ Mr. Christopher PriceOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter again on the Adjournment.