§ 7. Mr. John HughesTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has discussed the Guildford and Woolwich or the Maguire cases with (a) the Lord Chief Justice or (b) the Master of the Rolls.
§ Mr. WaddingtonI have not discussed the Guildford and Woolwich case or the Maguire case with the Lord Chief Justice or the Master of the Rolls.
§ Mr. HughesDoes not the Home Secretary share the public's serious concern that a number of leading judges are saying that the Guildford Four and the family that we are not allowed to mention are guilty? In the light of those ill-founded and irresponsible remarks which will pervert justice, will he demand their resignation?
§ Mr. WaddingtonI know nothing whatever of the remarks that the hon. Gentleman alleges have been made.
§ Mr. FranksAs and when my right hon. and learned Friend meets the Lord Chief Justice, will he discuss the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the prosecution of Mr. Kevin Taylor, Mr. John Stalker's friend?
§ Mr. WaddingtonI have no intention of discussing any of those matters with the Lord Chief Justice.
§ Mr. Tony BanksWill the Home Secretary tell the House what the hell is going on in the British judicial system? We have had Woolwich, Guildford, the case we cannot refer to today because it is sub judice, and we shall have the Birmingham Six before long. Many people in this country are beginning to believe that a combination of perjured police officers, judges who are clearly biased and compliant Ministers is reducing the British judicial system to low farce. In view of the times that the Home Secretary has had to eat his own words, would not it be better if he printed them on rice paper to make his task more palatable?
§ Mr. WaddingtonI am amazed at the hon. Gentleman's intemperate remarks. I certainly do not understand what he means by "compliant Ministers" because he knows perfectly well that I told the House on 14 June that counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions had told the May inquiry that, in his view, the convictions were unsafe. I said that in those circumstances the proper course would probably be for me to—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the Home Secretary is going wide of the sub judice rule on this matter.
§ Mr. WaddingtonI am sure that I am not infringing the sub judice rule—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let me hear what the Home Secretary has to say.
§ Mr. WaddingtonThe hon. Gentleman's suggestion was that there had been compliant Ministers. I was merely rehearsing the action that I had already taken and what I told the House as long ago as 14 June. I was going to remind the House of what I said in answer to a written question yesterday. I do not understand how that can be referred to as compliance. I have never heard such nonsense in all my life.
§ Mr. SpeakerI must say to the Home Secretary that it was he who caused this matter to become sub judice, and I now have to uphold that rule.