§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM) moved, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the action of the police in connection with their interrogation of Miss Savidge on the 15th day of May, 1928.
§ The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it appears that last month there was a prosecution in the police court against two persons, one of whom was Miss Savidge, in respect of certain alleged offences in Hyde Park. That prosecution was dismissed by the magistrate, and in consequence of that prosecution my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs 297 directed that the Papers should be laid before the Director of Public Prosecutions, in order that he might consider whether or not the facts were such as to justify a prosecution for perjury. The Director of Public Prosecutions, upon that request being made to him, had of course to obtain the statements of the witnesses who would be available to support such a prosecution, in order to consider whether or not it would be justifiable to take such a course. Allegations were made in another place as to the conduct of the police in obtaining a statement of evidence from Miss Savidge, who, as I have told your Lordships, was one of the persons charged and would be a necessary witness in the event of any prosecution. In view of the allegations that were made it was felt desirable, both in the interests of the police and of the public, that the allegations should be fully investigated, and it was decided that for that purpose an inquiry of some kind was necessary.
§ His Majesty's Government took the view, which was, I think, accepted on all hands, that the most convenient method of holding such an Inquiry was to avail ourselves of the provisions of the Act to which I have referred in my Resolution, which enables the Tribunal when set up to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to have produced before them such documents as it may think necessary. That Tribunal can only be set up by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. A Resolution in the terms which I have set down has, I believe, been introduced, or is being introduced in another place this evening, and I am moving the Resolution here. The terms of the Resolution have, I understand, been agreed between my right hon. friend the Home Secretary and the representatives of the other Parties, and I hope will meet with your Lordships' approval. In view of the fact that when this Motion is passed there will have to be a judicial investigation of the maters comprised in its terms, your Lordships will feel with me that it would be eminently undesirable that either I or, I think, any other member of this House should canvass the judgment which should be made, or indeed discuss in any way the investigation which is to take place. Those are matters which will on the passage of this 298 Motion become sub judice, and matters with regard to which therefore it would be very unfair, as well as undesirable, to make any comment or to say anything which might prejudice their investigation.
§ The only thing I desire to add is this, that in the event of the Resolution being passed in both Houses, the Tribunal which it is suggested should be set up will consist of three persons. The President will be Sir John Eldon Bankes, who, your Lordships will remember, retired last year from the Court of Appeal, of which he was then senior member, after a judicial career of some 18 years; and I think the fact that he has consented to preside is in itself a very great asset, because it ensures that public confidence will support whatever decision the investigation may reach. I would like to add that I think that in view of the fact that Sir John Bankes has retired after these long years of public service and that he has many public duties in his own county, the country is indebted to him for being willing to put aside his other duties and to devote himself once more to a troublesome matter of this kind. The other two members whom it is suggested we shall appoint are Mr. Withers, who is the Member of Parliament for the University of Cambridge, the senior partner in a firm of solicitors of great experience, and, I think, a person eminently qualified for such a task, and Mr. Lees-Smith, who is a Socialist Member of Parliament representing the Keighley Division of Yorkshire. I venture to think that that Tribunal is one which will commend itself to your Lordships, and also to the public at large.
§ Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the action of the police in connection with their interrogation of Miss Savidge on the 15th day of May, 1928.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEMy Lords, I do not rise to say a single word on the merits of this proposal. I entirely agree with it. I think that the Act of 1921 was the best instrument to use for the purpose of getting evidence and documents, and I congratulate the Government on the choice of the Chairman of the Inquiry. 299 I do not think any finer judicial mind for the purpose could have been found than that of Sir John Eldon Bankes.
§ LORD OLIVIERMy Lords, if a layman might be allowed to put a question, how is it that when the Director of Public Prosecutions is considering the question of prosecuting policemen for perjury he instructs the Police themselves to get up the evidence in the case. It seems a very curious proceeding. I should be very glad if the noble and learned Lord would indicate whether the judicial Tribunal will consider the procedure to be adopted in cases where charges are made against the Police, as to the manner in which and the persons by whom evidence should be sought.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, as I understand it, the Tribunal has been deliberately limited by consent of all Parties to the investigation of the action of the Police in connection with their interrogation of a particular witness on a particular day, and it is not desired that the Tribunal should embark upon any wider investigation than that which is comprised in their terms of reference. I do not think that the question which the noble Lord has put to me is one which would fall within the terms of reference, if your Lordships should agree to the adoption of the Resolution.
§ LORD OLIVIERThe noble and learned Lord, I gather, declines to give an answer to the definite question as to whether this is the regular practice when the Police are charged with perjury.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORFortunately charging the Police with perjury is not such a common feature of our administration of justice that any custom has been laid down with regard to it, but it certainly is a fact that before any person is prosecuted for perjury—certainly it was the practice so long as I was Attorney-General—very careful statements had to be obtained from all the witnesses who could be called, in order that we might decide whether there was a prima facie case, because I have always taken the view that it is very unfair to put any person on his trial unless those who are responsible are satisfied that there is a prima facie case, as the mere fact of a prosecution in itself involves a slur and a hardship, and it 300 ought not to be undertaken without very good grounds. I am not proposing to discuss the exact way in which the evidence was or was not obtained in this case, because I think that would be getting much too near the matters at issue, but the obtaining of such statements is a necessary part of the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and it is a duty which in my experience he has in the past discharged with very great zeal and very great discretion.