§ 96. Mr. Moodyasked the Attorney-General whether he will consider amending the provisions of Regulation 1 (a) of the Prosecution of Offences Regulations, 1946, whereby it is the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to take over and carry on a prosecution when a warrant has been obtained by a private individual so that those who obtain the warrant can select their own solicitor and counsel for the proper presentation of the case to the examining justices for a committal for trial in view of the unsatisfactory manner the case was presented in the recent case at Arundel when the nominee of the Director of Public Prosecutions clearly invited the examining magistrates to decline to send the case for trial.
§ The Attorney-GeneralNo. In view of the implications of this Question, I will, with the leave of the House, explain a298W little fully the circumstances which have given rise to it. After the murder of Miss Joan Woodhouse at Arundel in August, 1948, a very full investigation was conducted by the police under the supervision of a most experienced officer from Scotland Yard. It did not produce any evidence upon which proceedings could be taken and at the coroner's inquest a verdict of murder by some person unknown was returned.
In the following year and after certain additional information had been received from a private detective, whose activities did not, however, bring to light any significant new evidence not already known to the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions asked that an entirely fresh investigation should be made into the whole case and this was conducted under the supervision of another experienced officer from Scotland Yard. The report of that investigation was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions who took the advice of Senior Treasury Counsel upon it. Counsel considered that the evidence did not justify a prosecution and with this view the Director agreed. At this stage, since the matter had received some publicity, I called for the papers myself and personally read them. I agreed with the conclusion that the available evidence did not justify placing any individual upon trial for his life. Later, the justices at Arundel issued a warrant on the application of a private prosecutor. It then became the statutory duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to take over the conduct of the proceedings. After a full hearing the justices decided that there was no prima facie case to answer.
I am satisfied that it is in the public interest that the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is answerable to me as I am to the House, should have the duty of conducting these grave cases before the courts. In this country the duty of those who appear in the name of the Crown is to prosecute, not to persecute. They act, as has been said, as officers of justice putting all the facts, including those favourable to the accused, before the court. I am satisfied that the distinguished counsel who, on my personal nomination and not on that of the Director, conducted this case on behalf of the Crown before the justices at Arundel, discharged his duty in accordance with that high tradition.