§ 3.46 p.m.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I would like to make a statement on behalf of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General, about allegations made in the Daily Express on 23rd October to the effect that a politically-motivated veto was imposed on the intention of the Surrey police to charge a number of people with conspiracy arising out of the Guildford and Woolwich bomb incidents, and that this veto resulted in the release of a number of suspects against whom there was a good case. Honourable Members will recall that this statement was promised by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on Thursday.
"I should begin by saying with the utmost emphasis that my right honourable and learned friend is most disappointed at being unable to make this statement himself but he is ill in bed.
"The allegations appeared in an article on the front page of the Daily Express under the banner headline, 'Bomb Police Muzzled' and the words How Government veto let suspects go free'. The article alleged that as a result of political pressure, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary on behalf of the Government decided that there should be no more conspiracy trials and gave orders to that effect, that the Director of Public Prosecutions 166 and my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General accepted those orders and that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions had issued written instructions to the Surrey police who were compelled to drop what they regarded as a good case if conspiracy to murder could have been charged.
"It would, of course, be wholly improper for the Government to interfere with the prosecution process, and in particular to impose a veto of this nature on the activities of the prosecuting authorities. It is also a very serious reflection on the prosecuting authorities themselves to suggest that either my right honourable and learned friend, or the Director of Public Prosecutions, or the Police, or by inference counsel for the prosecution would accept such a veto. In these circumstances, the House may feel it right that I should state the history of this matter in a little detail.
"Bombs exploded in Guildford and Woolwich on the 5th October and 7th November last year. On 10th December the Surrey police formally notified the Director of Public Prosecutions that they had arrested and charged six men and a woman with murder, four men with unlawful possession of explosives, another man with conspiracy to cause explosions (not conspiracy to murder), and another woman with both murder and unlawful possession of explosives.
"There was no intention on the part of the Surrey police to charge a number of people or indeed anyone with conspiracy to murder. Subsequently on the advice of counsel a charge of conspiracy to murder was introduced at the trial in respect of one accused by reason of the particular facts relating to him, and proceeded with.
"Investigations continued and the Police Report and statement were received by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 17th January. He immediately sent them to counsel to advise in the matter. The team of counsel was led by the honourable and learned Member for Merton, Wimbledon.
"After very careful consideration of all the papers, the honourable and 167 learned Member for Merton, Wimbledon, and his team came to the conclusion that the evidence against some of those arrested and charged was insufficient. This advice was accepted by the Surrey police and the Director of Public Prosecutions as the only possible decision in the circumstances.
"Junior counsel appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions before the Guildford justices on 3rd February and offered no evidence against three of the men charged with murder, and against the one who had been charged with conspiracy to cause explosions. They were accordingly discharged. Up to this time there had been no consultations of any kind with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General, nor with the Law Officers Department, except that in accordance with normal practice the Attorney General had nominated counsel for the prosecution.
"On the 14th February my right honourable and learned friend received a request for his consent to proceedings under the Explosive Substances Act 1882 against the remaining accused since for proceedings under this Statute his consent is necessary. Having considered the papers and discussed the case with counsel and representatives of the Director of Public Prosecutions he granted his consent to prosecutions for offences under the Act which could include conspiracies to cause explosions and the charges were preferred. This was the first occasion that my right honourable and learned friend had seen the papers, and this of course was after the decision to offer no evidence in respect of four of the accused had been taken and implemented.
"Neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General has issued any ruling that there shall be no more conspiracy trials, and no written or oral instructions were sent to the Surrey police relating to conspiracy charges in this case. The allegations made by the Daily Express in this regard are therefore totally without foundation and thoroughly mischievous.
"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary rightly described the 168 article by the Daily Express as one of the most false, irresponsible and malevolent Press reports he had ever seen and the honourable and learned Member for Merton, Wimbledon, who, as I have said, led the team of counsel throughout the case, described the article as 'totally false and irresponsible'.
"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary called upon the Daily Express to withdraw the grave and unfounded allegations which it had made. However, far from publishing any withdrawal, the Daily Express on the following day published a leading article the purpose of which could only be to divert attention from the very serious allegations of political interference and which made no attempt to withdraw them. Instead the article put forward a new charge; that is to say that the policy followed by the Law Officers and the Department of Public Prosecutions had been to refrain from charging persons with conspiracy alone—that is to say, not to charge them unless they were also charged with some substantive offence. This allegation is equally untrue. Conspiracy is charged where there is evidence to support such a charge and where it is an appropriate charge to bring. It has in fact been charged on occasions without at the same time charging a substantive offence. The leading article ended by asking for 'confirmation of the authorities' determination to use every constitutional means to smash terrorism'. I can assure the House that all constitutional steps have been and will continue to be taken to bring to a halt that which the Daily Express rightly described as 'that terrorism which is everyone's foe'. It was hoped that the Daily Express might feel called upon to withdraw these allegations. It has chosen not to do so.
"This failure of the Daily Express to make an immediate and specific withdrawal of patently false statements is keenly resented by those referred to in it, the Government, my right honourable and learned friend, the Director of Public Prosecutions, counsel and the police. It also occasions grave and unnecessary anxiety to the public.
"In the light of this statement I am sure that the whole House will agree 169 with me that the Daily Express should now totally withdraw the very serious allegations which it made and do so without reservation."
§ 3.54 p.m.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, as I hope other noble Lords will be, for repeating the Statement in this House, because although the Government, as I rejoice to acknowledge, have been able to deny the report as wholly without foundation the charge when made was an exceedingly grave one, and it is for that reason that I asked for the Statement to be repeated in this House. It is of the utmost importance that the process of prosecution should be totally immune from political interference. This is a very well established convention of our Constitution, which I hope we shall preserve inviolate under whichever Party is in Office. I should first like to say that I am sorry to hear that the Attorney General is ill, which I should not otherwise have known, and although of course he could not have been present here I am sorry to hear of the reason which prevented him from being in another place.
Having established the constitutional point, there is only one other point which I should like to put to the noble Lord. Obviously, the charge of conspiracy is one which has aroused a good deal of controversy from time to time and it is exceedingly important that we should understand what we are about in dealing with it. I think it was when I was on the Woolsack that we referred the whole question of conspiracy to the Law Commission, and that came out with a working paper which I think is still under consideration. The most controversial point was nothing to do with recent trials; it was the question whether you should charge a conspiracy in cases where the fact alleged, had it been done by one person, would not have constituted a crime at law. That is controversial and the Law Commission have expressed a tentative opinion, but have acknowledged that you could not just remove that branch of the law without plugging some of the gaps which its absence would create.
But what I think is beyond all question—.and this is the second point which I 170 think is of great importance to your Lordships—is that the charge of conspiracy, except in this disputed field, is of the utmost importance particularly in dealing with cases of terrorism, but also in the case of other serious crimes where more than one person is involved. There are procedural reasons why it is valuable to the prosecution and, if we are to take terrorism seriously—as I hope the whole House will—it is important, whatever is thought about the controversial aspects of the charge in other cases, that the charge of conspiracy should be retained in this field. I was particularly glad to note from what the noble Lord said that this is the intention of the Government. Although, in the event, I do not have much to ask about this Statement, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord for repeating it and I hope that the time of the House has not been thought to be wasted by his having, done so. It is a matter to which I attach very great importance.
§ Lord WIGODERMy Lords, I had the unenviable task of being leading counsel for one of the defendants in the Guildford case, and it follows that I was not in any way a party to any discussions that there may have been between prosecuting counsel and the Director. If I may, I would wish to make two observations. First, throughout a five weeks' trial there was never the slightest suggestion of political interference of any sort with counsel who were appearing for the Crown. Secondly, those who know Sir Michael Havers, who led for the Crown, and Mr. Michael Hill, Treasury counsel, who was his junior, will recognise at once that any suggestion that there could have been political pressure which might have persuaded them to select certain defendants, certain charges or certain evidence in a particular way is a piece of outrageous nonsense.
The only other observation which I would venture to add to those made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, is that this trial proceeded entirely satisfactorily, save for one particular instance, without the use of conspiracy charges. I venture to hope that it is generally recognised that the unnecessary use of conspiracy charges where there are substantive charges is something which complicates, 171 confuses, lengthens and greatly increases the expense of these trials.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have just said. I would express my gratitude, too, for what the noble and learned Lord said concerning my right honourable friend the Attorney General, who I hope will soon be restored to health. As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, these were exceedingly grave charges, and that is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary considered it desirable to speak about this matter last Thursday in answer to Questions in another place, and why my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General made his Statement today. They are very grave charges indeed which, if believed, could have a disastrous effect, in my view, in terms of public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.
Turning to what the noble and learned Lord said about the conspiracy laws, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in reply to a Written Question on this subject on 14th October from my noble friend Lord Chorley, said that we hope the Report of the Law Commission will be available in January. Finally, I very much hope that as a result of the exchanges today, and of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have said, the Daily Express will now, rather belatedly, take an early opportunity to make a full retraction of these extremely grave and totally unjustified charges.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is it not the case that if anybody—any newspaper, any member of the public, or anybody—makes an allegation against a Minister of the Crown, which is subsequently proved to be false and unfounded, the matter can be referred to the Committee of Privileges? Have the Government considered taking that course?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I could not, I think, speak without notice on a question of that sort. My noble friend has great experience in these matters, and I will certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend what he has just said.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEI think the position is that the Committee of Privileges concerned would be that of another place, and we could not possibly go into it here.