§ 2.55 p.m.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the view of the Government that misprision of treason is still a criminal offence.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, although the existence of a common law offence is a matter for the courts, I have no reason to doubt that this offence still exists but there have been no recent cases where such offences have been charged.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply to the Question, which was put down before the recent legislation. May I ask whether the noble Lord agrees that persons who conceal the whereabouts of, or information regarding, terrorists or members of illegal organisations in return for interviews or for other reasons may render themselves liable to penalties, either under the recent legislation or at common law?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, on the first point, as I have 66 indicated in the reply which I gave to the substantive Question, the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions could consider at any time the formula suggested by the noble and learned Lord in his Question. But as a result of very substantial research in the Home Office which has taken place as a result of his Question, I can give him one piece of information which I do not think he necessarily possesses. The last occasion that we can discover when this charge was made was in 1820 at the time of the Cato Street conspirators, who were also charged with treason at the same time. To prevent a flood of letters to the Daily Telegraph or The Times, may I say that there may well be subsequent occasions when such a charge was made. As the noble and learned Lord has indicated, as a result of the passage of last week's legislation the Director and the Attorney-General will most carefully consider any situation of the kind he has in mind.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, in rejoicing to think that my Question has caused the Home Office to look into the history of our criminal law, would not the noble Lord possibly agree that we are approaching once more the same sort of situation which obtained in the Cato Street conspiracy? And will the noble Lord accept the assurance from this side of the House that should there be any such conspiracy again in St. Marylebone I will do my best to suppress it.
Viscount MONCKMy Lords, will the noble Lord, or, failing him, perhaps my noble and learned friend, who was so helpful when he sat next to me at school, tell us—most of us on this Bench—what "misprision" means?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, that is one question to which I hesitate to give an answer, particularly in the presence of one Lord Chancellor and one former Lord Chancellor. But I will gladly give the most detailed definition I can to the noble Viscount. I have several extracts from various views of what the definition is. They are rather lengthy, and I will send them to him with the greatest pleasure.