CORRUPTION INQUIRY

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25678, 15 December 1948, Page 5

CORRUPTION INQUIRY

Objections To

Procedure

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

[From E. G. WEBBER. Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) (Rec. 7 p.m.) LONDON. December 14. The tribunal inquiring into charge* of corruption at the Board of Trade, already a major topic of discussion in Britain, is causing further argument about suggestions by the legal correspondents of several newspapers that its procedure will require revision in the event of any further inquiries of the same nature. ~ The tribunal, though it possesses all the powers of a court of law in that it can compel the attendance of witnesses and take evidence from them on oath, does not, under the legislation under which it was established, follow the normal rules of evidence and examination. It is entitled to elicit any facts or statements bearing upon the specific charges of corruption which it has been called upon to investigate. and in the process it may hear, and has already heard, hearsay statements which would not be admissible in an ordinary court of law and which would not be admissible in any subsequent court proceedings. This, it is held, may prejudice the trial of persons against whom proceedings may be taken, or may prevent people whose names have been associated with the proceedings from clearing themselves. Ulis matter has already been discussed on -the highest Government levels. Mr Attlee s public relations officer, Mr Philip Jordan, has said that it is unlikely that any further inquiries of this nature will be held until the procedure laid down in 1921 is amended.

It has also been suggested that when the tribunal's report comes before the House of Commons a demand will be made that any further inquiries conducted under the Judicial Inquiries Act should proceed on the same lines of evidence and examination as those adopted in the ordinary courts of law.

Not Sitting in Judgment The difference Detween the tribunal and an ordinary court is that it is not sitting in judgment upon anybody, but is solely concerned to elicit any information bearing upon specific charges of corruption. It will be for the Director of Public Prosecutions, when the tribunal has delivered its report, to decide whether grounds exist for bringing criminal charges against individuals.

The witnesses, most of whom have already given statements to the police, are first examined upon these statements by the Attorney-General and later re-examined by their own counsel. Although the Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross) is not in this instance a public prosecutor, it has been pointed out that in several instances he has been compelled to cross-examine witnesses in order to obtain fgets which the tribunal desires to know. In the course of these examinations other names have been mentioned and other matters brought to light which have received widespread publicity. Already the tribunal has received a number of requests from individuals who have been mentioned for an opportunity of explaining their association with the proceedings or of denying any connexion with them.

Attorney-General’s Position Sir Hartley Shawcross himself has also been placed in a difficult and delicate position, because the Attor-ney-General is a Minister of the Crown and therefore an official colleague of several of the witnesses. It is widely admitted that Sir Hartley Shawcross has overcome these difficulties with notable distinction and impartiality, but the opinion has been expressed that on any future occasion he or the holder of his office should not be placed in this position. When the inquiry opened Sir Hartley Shawcross said that one of its purposes was to shield innocent people by silencing “the lying tongue of rumour.” In view of the unprecedented publicity the inquiry has had and the dimensions it has olainly assumed m the public mind, it is difficult to believe that the proceedings can achieve this. It has been suggested that any future inquiries on similar matter* should oe held in the first instance in private, and that the examination of witnesses should be conducted solely by the commissioners and not by the Attorney-General. If this procedure were adopted the matters under investigation would only become public property in the event of proceedings being authorised in the ordinary courts of law.

The tribunal is now in its twentieth day and is still dealing with its fiftysecond witness (Mr John Belcher. Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade). It is expected that unless any unexpected developments occur it will conclude its public sittings on Friday and that the commissioners win submit their report in the form of a Parliamentary White Paper soon after Parliament reassembles on January 18. MR BELCHER ENDS EVIDENCE “CAUSES TO REGRET SENSE OF HUMOUR ” l N.Z.P .A.—Reuter—Copyright) _ , LONDON. Dec. 13. Resuming hrs evidence at the Board of Trade inquiry the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr J - V - Be'oher) told the Attorney-Gen-eral (Sir Hartley Shawcross) that ha had accepted gifts of a bottle of sherry from fair Maurice Block, a wine merchant and importer. He denied that he had asked for these gifts, either directly or indirectly. Dealing with a remark which he wag alleged to have made to Colonel George about the possibility of get- ~ Job the Government went out of office. Mr Belcher said he had no recollection of saying it, and if he had said it, it must have been purely as a J * *l-2 He ~a dded: “During the course of this tribunal I have had many ca 2r ses r» t< ? E egre V9X Sense of humour.” Mr Belcher agreed that he had been spending up to the full rate of his income of £2OOO a year. He denied that he was insuring himself against the Joss of his position, and added- “I would not go round touting for a directorship.” Mr Belcher described as preposterous allegations of bribery against the Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice) and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Glenvil Hall) and civil servants in the Board of Trade. Mr Belcher concluded his evidence after 11 2 hours m the box, spread over three days. The tribunal adjourned until to-mor-?J he T P r esident of the Board of Trade J H. Wilson), in a reply in the House of Commons, said that four employees of the board had been convicted of bribery or corruption’ since July, 1945, and discharged. FRAUD ALLEGED IN ARGENTINA (Rec. 7 p.m.) BUENOS AIRES. Dec. 13 Fourteen persons, including some of the closest advisers of the President of Argentina (General Peron) were charged to-day with defrauding th#* Argentine Government of at least 2,100.000 dollars. Judge Oscar Baltran. who conducted the preliminary investigation, said that the fraud involved obtaining a loan of Argentine funds for the transfer of non-existent aluminium plant from Italy to Argentina. He said that the Italians who originated the deal set aside 640000 dollars for bribes to Argentine officials.

He adued that. General Peron himself h« d ordered the initial investigation after suspicion had directed itself at the chief of the presidential bodyguard and the presidential coordinator of the national five-year Plan.