Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
Is the Attorney-General quite unaware that, throughout the length and breadth of the British Isles, the recent case of Dr. Adams has evoked discussion in terms which bring discredit upon the law and upon his office— [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]— upon the law and in his office? Will he not, therefore, in the interests of British justice, have an inquiry into this case, into the circumstances in which the prosecution was brought, and also into the circumstances in which the Attorney-General found it necessary to oppose the application of the defence that preliminary proceedings should be held in camera?
The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. Counsel appearing for the Crown in the preliminary proceedings made it perfectly clear that he did not oppose the application that certain evidence should be heard in camera. The hon. Gentleman is equally misinformed, in my belief, about the other matters, and I have nothing to add.
I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to underestimate the public anxiety there is about this case. In view of the widespread misgivings, could he give the House an assurance that the widespread rumours that the prosecution was launched against the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Constable of Eastbourne are quite unfounded?
I can, certainly. I am glad to have an opportunity of repudiating some rumours which have been maliciously circulated. There has been no disagreement between the Director of Public Prosecutions and myself as to the course which should be pursued in this case.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the statement made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) appeared in a weekly publication, which I will not dignify by naming in this House, and is it not most undesirable that statements of that kind should be made, without verification? Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that there is widespread indignation at the unfair personal attacks which have been made upon him?
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. Many attacks have been made upon me; that is, perhaps, to be expected. Whether they are well founded or not is another matter. I am glad to have an opportunity here and now of putting an end, I hope, to criticisms of my learned friend who conducted the case in the magistrates' court, who did not oppose the application that certain evidence should be heard in camera.
I am sure the Attorney-General appreciates that we all very much welcome the statements which he has made at the Box today, but will he bear in mind the deep public anxiety there is about certain aspects of this case? I am sure he is well aware of them, as we all are, and I will mention just one. He appreciates, I am sure, as we all do, the terrifying consequences which might have ensued if certain documents were not available at the trial. I will not go into the matter further. Is it not desirable to have an independent inquiry into these matters so that public concern about them should be allayed and the matter dealt with in one way or another?
I appreciate that there is a certain concern in certain quarters, but I do not accept the hon. and learned's Gentlemans' view that there is public concern about, for instance, where those nurses' reports came from. Nor do I accept his view as to the possible consequences if those reports had not been available, in view of the observations made by the learned judge at the trial.