HC Deb 18 January 1972 vol 829 cc164-6W
Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in how many cases in the Metropolitan Police area in each of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971 information was made public by the Metropolitan Police relating to the findings of a breathalyser test or that a named person had been detained for questioning or other inquiries, prior to the institution of proceedings, in confirmation of facts already known to an inquirer;

(2) in how many cases in the Metropolitan Police area in each of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971, the police made public a decision not to prosecute, where previously they had given publicity to the results of a breathalyser test or that a named person had been detained for questioning or other inquiries.

Mr. Sharples

The information is not available.

Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue a direction to the Metropolitan Police to prohibit them from making public the fact that a named person has been detained for questioning or other inquiries, or the findings of a breathalyser test, prior to the institution of proceedings.

Mr. Sharples

No. The existing practice is described in my reply to the hon. Member's Questions on 22nd December. —[Vol. 828, c.381.]

Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what credentials are sought by the Metropolitan Police and what steps are taken to check the same before information is imparted to an inquirer concerning any named person who has been detained for questioning or other inquiries, or in relation to the findings of a breathalyser test, prior to the institution of proceedings.

Mr. Sharples

Information would normally be given to a relative or friend, subject to satisfactory identification and the consent of the person concerned. Otherwise it is not the practice to supply information in these circumstances, but information already known to an inquirer may be confirmed.

Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps are taken by the Metropolitan Police to publicise a decision that proceedings are not to be instituted, where previously they have made public the findings of a breathalyser test or the fact that a named person has been detained for questioning or other inquiries;

(2) why the Metropolitan Police failed or refused to make public the fact that there was no evidence upon which a prosecution could be founded against a named person following a breathalyser test which was taken at Tottenham Court Road Police Station on 14th December, 1971, when the police had made public the findings of the breathalyser test, particulars of which case have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central.

Mr. Sharpies

Information cannot be given about the results of blood tests which are above the prescribed level because court proceedings might be prejudiced by publication. If, therefore, information were given about any blood tests it would be assumed that wherever information was refused proceedings must be in prospect.

Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will name the inquirer or inquirers to whom the information was imparted by the Metropolitan Police relating to the findings of a breathalyser test against a named person at Tottenham Court Road Police Station on 14th December, 1971, at a time when no proceedings had been instituted, particulars of which have been sent to him by the lion. Member for Hackney, Central; and if he will state what credentials were offered by such inquirers and what steps were taken by the police to check the same;

(2) what steps were taken by the Metropolitan Police to determine whether they should impart information relating to the findings of the breathalyser test against a named person at Tottenham Court Road Police Station on 14th December, 1971, at a time when no proceedings had been instituted, particulars of which case had been sent to him by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central.

Mr. Sharples

A number of accredited Press representatives who inquired were told that the information they already had about the result of the breathalyser tests was correct. The general practice in this matter is described in my reply to the hon. Member's Questions on 22nd December.—[Vol. 828, c.381.]