§ Mr. MackinlayTo ask the Attorney-General (1) what representations he received from agencies of either the Government of South Africa, or the prosecution or judicial authorities of South Africa prior to committal proceedings against Mr. Paul Bennett;
(2) what representations he received from agencies of either the United States Government or the United States prosecution or judicial authorities prior to committal proceedings against Mr. Paul Bennett.
§ The Attorney-GeneralNone.
§ Mr. MackinlayTo ask the Attorney-General why a public immunity interest certificate was originally applied in the case of Paul Bennett; in what circumstances; and for what reason it was subsequently lifted.
§ The Attorney-GeneralPaul James Bennett was committed for trial on 22 May 1991 at Southwark Crown court by the Horseferry Road magistrates court. He then sought judicial review of the committal on the ground that he had been brought within the jurisdiction in circumstances which were unlawful.
The applicant sought discovery of a number of documents relating to communications between police forces or prosecuting authorities, both in this country and abroad, in connection with the detention and investigation of crime and the apprehension of offenders. That is a class of document which ordinarily attracts public interest immunity and in July 1992 the then Home Secretary signed a public interest immunity certificate in respect of those documents. In the event the question of disclosure did not arise for decision at that stage because the divisional court dismissed the application for judicial review on the ground that it had no power to inquire into the circumstances by which a person had been brought within the jurisdiction.
That ruling was the subject of a successful appeal to the House of Lords, which remitted the case to the divisional court on 24 June 1993. That court considered the question of disclosure on 19 October 1993. The Crown agreed on the advice of counsel that the court should be invited to order discovery of the documents, on the ground that they went to the heart of a factual dispute which had by then been made material by the decision of the House of Lords. The court upheld the claim for public interest immunity, but accepted that, in the circumstances of the particular case, the balance of the competing public interests lay in disclosure.