§ 2.56 p.m.
§ Lord Dean of BeswickMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why no charges have been brought in respect of the allegations contained in the article in the Observer, page 41, of Sunday 5th July, written by Melanie McFadyean and Ole Hansen, and what action is proposed in the matter.
§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Havers)My Lords, a file of evidence concerning alleged offences of gross indecency and indecent assault by Mr. Oliver Grieveson against: his three sons was submitted by the Cleveland Constabulary to the Cleveland branch of the Cleveland/North Yorkshire Crown Prosecution Service in December 1986. The three sons—Mr. Oliver Paul Grieveson, Mr. Barry Grieveson and Mr. Philip Grieveson—are now aged 38, 32 and 22 respectively.
The last incident complained of occurred in 1974. Having regard in particular to the staleness of the offences, the Crown Prosecution Service decided that the public interest did not require proceedings and accordingly advised that no further action be taken in the matter.
A further file of evidence was submitted by the Cleveland Constabulary to the CPS in June 1987, incorporating additional material supplied to the police by Mr. Oliver Paul Grieveson, Mr. Barry Grieveson and Mr. Philip Grieveson. The CPS reviewed the case again but found no reason to alter its previous decision to take no action in the matter. I should also add that, contrary to the impression given in the newspaper article, Mr. Grieveson has received the advice of a consultant psychiatrist.
§ Lord Dean of BeswickMy Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that long and detailed reply. However, would he not agree that lay people, reading the facts of the case about what took place some years ago, might find it difficult to understand that there was obviously evidence against the father, substantiated by three sons, and yet it now appears that the noble and learned Lord is saying that no action is to be taken, simply on the basis that it is out of time?
It is really out of time? Is it not possible for the matter to be reconsidered, bearing in mind that this area of the United Kingdom is under the spotlight with the present chief of police decrying certain 1270 people for not helping the police in this type of prosecution? I leave it at that.
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, it really is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. Staleness is of course an important factor which it took into consideration. But there would be many others. For example, I think of the present ages of the three sons concerned, and their having to give evidence at least 14 years after the event.
§ Lord Hailsham of Saint MaryleboneMy Lords, is it not important to remember that the question of whether or not to prosecute in any given case is not truly a government responsibility but a responsibility under the supervision of the Attorney-General in his professional—not his ministerial—capacity?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend. I have a sort of reciprocal arrangement with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General. It was usually me, as Attorney-General, acting as the agent; but in this case it is the other way round. I think we are right in setting up the CPS to give a great deal of independence to those running the local branches.
§ Lord Dean of BeswickMy Lords, I am sorry to have to come back. But surely when a matter like this is made public it is the duty of people holding public office to question whether the right procedures have been followed. Mistakes have been made in the past and can be made in the future. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he would cast his mind towards the part of the report stating that it had been suggested that the three sons could bring a private prosecution against their own father? If something is tragically wrong, surely this is a last resort, and it ought to be done by the DPP.
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I have little to add. As I have said, we have delegated as far as possible. It is interesting that in the newspaper article to which the noble Lord referred it was said by the sons that they had done this in order to force their father to have psychiatric treatment. He has now taken that advice.