*LORD MUSKERRYrose to call attention to the methods adopted by the Board of Trade in the prosecution of the master of the ss. Snowdon on a criminal charge in connection with the navigation of his ship, in which case before commencing any proceedings the master was asked to attend the solicitors to the Board of Trade to make a statement to them, on which statement the prosecution was subsequently founded; and also to call attention to the fact that previous to the issue of the summons the Board of Trade's solicitors were in possession of statements from independent witnesses entirely in favour of the accused, but refused to call those witnesses on the hearing, a course which might have led to a grave mis-carriage of justice; and to move to resolve "that, in the opinion of this House, in the interests of justice in all future prosecutions, before taking any statement from a person against whom it is contemplated to institute criminal proceedings, it be an instruction to persons acting on behalf of the Board of Trade to inform the person from whom they desire to obtain the statement, that he should be advised by his own solicitors as to the desirability of making any statement, and that in all cases of criminal prosecutions of this nature no evidence obtained by the Board of Trade in favour of the accused be withheld from the tribunal investigating the charge."
The noble Lord saidMy Lords, the whole of this case is very clearly set 268 out on the Order Paper. In their dealing with captains and officers there seems to be a certain amount of animus shewn by the Board of Trade. Instead of acing as a perfectly impartial body, the Board seems to assume that each captain and officer must be guilty. In this case the Board of Trade proceeded to get a statement from the captain against whom they were contemplating instituting criminal proceedings. They also obtained statements from six witnesses, two of whom were independent, the other four being connected, I think, with the opposing ship. These six witnesses all testified in favour of the captain. The Board of Trade however, suppressed that evidence, and the only evidence they brought forward was that of the captain and the mate of the opposing ship. On the evidence of the prosecution the Court said there was no case, and did not call evidence for the defence at all. In Common Law a prisoner, when arrested is warned that any statement he makes may be used against him. If your Lordships will look at the statement of the facts on the Paper you will, I am sure, agree with me that the course taken in this case was altogether a most scandalous proceeding. In these circumstances I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved to resolve: "That in the opinion of this House, in the interests of justice in all future prosecutions, before taking any statement from a person against whom it is contemplated to institute criminal proceedings, it be an instruction to persons acting on behalf of the Board of Trade to inform the person from whom they desire to obtain the statement, that he should be advised by his own solicitor as to the desirability of making any statement, and that in all cases of criminal prosecutions of this nature no evidence obtained by the Board of Trade in favour of the accused be withheld from the tribunal investigating the charge."—(Lord Muskerry.)
§ THE EARL OF GRANARDMy Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has not been correctly informed as to the facts of this case. What took place was that the Board of Trade 269 received a complaint that when two passenger vessels, the "Snowdon" and the "Carisbrooke," were making for Llandudno Pier, the master of the "Snowdon" crossed ahead of the other vessel and caused serious risk of collision. The case was one which the Board of Trade were bound to take up, and it was necessary to obtain statements and ascertain whether the other vessel was also in fault. It was explained to the manager of the "Snowdon" for what purpose the evidence of the captain of that vessel was required, and when Captain Cox, the master of the "Snowdon" called on the solicitor acting for the Board of Trade, he was told that a statement would be taken from him as to the action of the other vessel, but that, so far as his own action was concerned, a statement was not asked for, as if any proceedings were eventually taken he was the person who would be prosecuted. This was fully explained to him. He replied that he was anxious to submit his own version of the matter to the Board whatever might be the result, and under these circumstances a full statement was taken from him. The suggestion that the prosecution was based on this statement is entirely unfounded. The statement was not used in any way in the prosecution. It was disregarded by the Board and their advisers in coming to a decision to take proceedings, and it was not even read by counsel for the prosecution. The case was taken into Court, and the stipendiary magistrate dismissed the charge against Captain Cox, because he did not think the evidence sufficient, but he refused to give costs against the Board of Trade, as he considered that the Board were quite justified in bringing the case before the court. The firm of solicitors who defended Captain Cox were given every facility for obtaining copies of the statements obtained from the "Snowdon" by the prosecution, and the usual course was then followed, namely: for the prosecution to call the evidence in support of the charge, leaving the defence to call that in answer to the charge. If the prosecution had adopted the unusual procedure of calling evidence in the defendant's favour, this evidence could not have been cross-examined. I have been obliged to 270 reply at some length, as a question of this nature reflecting on the conduct of proceedings by a Public Department calls for serious treatent, and I was anxious to show your Lordships that there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that there was any unfairness in the conduct of this case.
LORD MUSKERRYI do not propose to detain your Lordships by replying to the Noble Earl. I contend that my statement of the facts is correct and that his is wrong. I shall, therefore, publish the whole of the correspondence and circulate it amongst your Lordships.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.