HC Deb 20 November 1979 vol 974 cc98-9W
Mr. Cryer

asked the Attorney-General if any persons other than Mr. Anthony Blunt have been granted immunities, waivers or concessions of any kind in connection with the defection of Burgess and Maclean.

The Attorney-General

No.

Mr. Marlow

asked the Attorney-General if he will specify under what legal provisions Anthony Blunt was given immunity from prosecution; and whether there is any power to revoke this decision at a later date.

The Attorney-General

The undertaking to Mr. Blunt that he would not be prosecuted was given on the authority of the then Attorney-General, who, as the principal Law Officer of the Crown, had wide powers under statute and the common law both to prevent the institution of certain criminal proceedings and to terminate criminal proceedings on indictment. Such decisions are for the Attorney-General alone, and the extent to which successive Attorneys-General honour the undertakings of their predecessors are matters for Attorneys-General themselves. But in any event, confessions obtained as a result of such undertakings would, by virtue of the inducement given, be inadmissible as evidence in any prosecution.

Mr. Skinner

asked the Attorney-General, following the Prime Minister's statement regarding Anthony Blunt, whether any other persons connected with the Burgess Maclean case have been given concessions or immunities from prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act; and if he will list the names.

The Attorney-General

Mr. Blunt is the only person to whom an immunity has been given on the authority of the Attorney-General.

I understand that in a few cases in interviews with other persons inducements were offered which might have rendered any statements made as a result of the inducement inadmissible in any subsequent criminal proceedings.

In my view it would not be in the public interest to give further details.

Back to
Forward to