663 / 736
"In deciding whether
to prosecute,
such
authorities are entitled to take into acccount and
to apply their judgment to the balance of public
interest.
"It would be wholly improper for them to be
influenced by considerations of political pressures,
interest, sympathy or aversion. In the recent case,
they acted with complete propriety in accordance
with the principles to which I have referred."
In another reply, Sir Peter said that the figure
for the cost to public funds of the prosecution
was not yet known.
The newspaper, Mr. Brian Roberts, its editor,
Col. Douglas Cairns, former Defence Adviser to
the British High Commission in Lagos, and Mr.
Jonathan Aitken, a journalist, were all acquitted
from charges of unlawfully communicating a re
port on the Nigerian civil war in contravention
of Section Two of the Official Secrets Act, 1911.
(Daily Telegraph,
9th February, 1971)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR
NORTHERN IRELAND
CRITICISED BY JUDGE
Criticism that it arose far too frequently that
consent by the Attorney General to prosecutions
failed to measure up to facts of individual cases,
was expressed by Mr. Justice Gibson at the
Northern Ireland Winter Assizes.
The judge said that day after day in dealing
with cases he found that depositions did not
represent the facts.
It appeared that the Attorney General had
given certificates of consent for prosecutions be
fore facts were truly ascertained.
This amounted to that the Attorney General
was making up his mind before the facts were
ascertained.
Mr. Justice Gibson continued: "These are very
serious charges. Parliament thought fit to provide
a
safeguard
for persons
charged with
these
offences.
"If they are charged, the prosecution shall go
no further without the Attorney General directing
his mind
to the charge and to the evidence
supporting it.
"It is only if the Attorney General thinks it is
a proper case that he should issue a certificate
giving his consent for the case to continue."
In Belfast, Mr. Justice Gibson subsequently
explained remarks which he made in Court about
the issue of certificates of consent for prosecutions
by the Attorney-General.
The points which he had been making, he
observed, was that if the relevant section of the
Act was to provide protection, as intended, to
accused persons, the Attorney-General's consent
ought not to be given until the charge was formu
lated and until the Attorney-General had before
him facts in support of the charge.
Mr. Justice Gibson added that it might have
appeared ithat
the Attorndy-General's consent
should not be given until after the taking of
depositions, but, in fact, all the Attorney-General
had to do was to consider all the evidence avail
able before the deposition stage was reached.
(The Irish Tunes,
9th February, 1971)
SOLICITORS SUE MP OVER 'INQUIRY'
LETTER TO LAW SOCIETY
Mr. Reginald Freeson, 44, Labour M.P. for
East Willesden, was sued in the High Court by
a firm of solicitors over a letter he wrote to the
Law Society and the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. Stephen Terrell, Q.C. for the solicitors,
Norman
and Cyril Beach,
told Mr.
Justice
Geoffrey Lane that the letter told of alleged com
plaints
against
them by a number of Mr.
Freeson's constituents for whom they had acted
Mr. Freeson's letter went on to ask for a full
investigation by the Law Society into the firm's
activities.
"Mr. Freeson was not asked to write to the
Law Society" said counsel. "It was a gratuitous
exercise for a totally spiteful reason."
The solicitors, who practice as Beach and
Beach at Cricklewood Broadway and Kilburn
High Road, London, claim damages for libel in
the letter. They say the letter was written with
malice.
Mr. Freeson denies libel and claims it was his
duty to write the letter, which was protected by
qualified privilege.
In it, Mr. Freeson said that he had always
avoided criticism of solicitors when complaints
were made to him. "However, I have now had a
203