§ Mr. Miscampbellasked the Attorney-General whether, prior to the trial of Regina v. Deakin and others at the Central Criminal Court, the solicitor to the witness Mr. Peter Bessell explained to a senior official of the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions the nature of a proposed agreement between Mr. Bessell and the Sunday Telegraph concerning a book, asked whether the Director of Public Prosecution's department would see anything objectionable in the precise financial terms, and received a reply that the department would raise no objection and did not think it would prejudice the case.
The Attorney-GeneralI have personally inquired into this matter. The only approach made by Mr. Bessell's solicitor to the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning such a matter was on 2 October 1978, when he had a telephone conversation, a note of which was made immediately after, with a principal assistant director. On that occasion, the solicitor said that Mr. Bessell had received an offer—the terms of which he did not specify—from a national newspaper—which was not named—to serialise a book which, in part, dealt with the " Thorpe case ". The solicitor made it clear that such publication would be after the trial, so there was no question of possible prejudice—in the sense of contempt; but he thought the Director should know of the proposal because of the ammunition it could afford the defence to discredit Mr. Bessell.
The principal assistant director told the solicitor that his department would be concerned by anything which could be used to attempt to discredit Mr. Bessell, financial or otherwise, but that he did 702W not think it was for him to advise as to the offer.
I would emphasise that the principal assistant director was not told any of the terms of the offer, much less that it involved a contingency payment.