§ Mr. Haversasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what directions have been given to officers in the Metropolitan Police in resepect of disclosure to the Press that a positive breathalyser test has been obtained from a driver of a motor vehicle when no arrest or charge has been made, respectively.
§ Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what circumstances the Metropolitan Police make public the findings of a breathalyser test prior to the issue of a summons or preferment of charges against the person tested;
(2) in what circumstances the Metropolitan Police make public the fact that 381W a named person has been detained for questioning or other inquiries prior to the issue of a summons or preferment of charges against the person in question;
(3) what is his policy concerning the publication by the Metropolitan Police of the findings of a breathalyser test prior to the issue of a summons or the preferment of charges against the person tested;
(4) what is his policy concerning the publication by the Metropolitan Police of the fact that a named person has been detained for questioning or other inquiries before a summons has been issued or charges preferred against the person in question;
(5) what directives he has given to the Metropolitan Police concerning information which may be divulged to the public relating to named persons who have been detained for questioning or other inquiry and, in particular, for breathalyser testing.
§ Mr. SharplesIt is not the practice of the Metropolitan Police to make public the name of a person being questioned or the result of a breath test before a summons is issued or a charge preferred, but facts already known to an inquirer may be confirmed
§ Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in how many cases in the Metropolitan Police area during each of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971 was information made public by the Metropolitan Police relating to the findings of a breathalyser test prior to the issue of a summons or the preferment of a charge against the person tested;
(2) in how many cases in the Metropolitan Police area during each of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971 was information made public by the Metropolitan Police that a named person had been detained for questioning or other inquiries prior to issue of a summons or preferment of charges against the person in question.
§ Mr. SharplesNone, so far as can be ascertained, except in confirmation of facts already known to an inquirer.