Inquiries By Tribunals Discussed In Lecture

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30156, 13 June 1963, Page 15

Inquiries By Tribunals Discussed In Lecture

The history of some of the major Parliamentary committees of inquiry should be a warning against returning to that system whenever there was a major issue to be sifted, said Professor G. W. Keeton last evening. Professor Keeton, head of the department of Laws and professor of English law at the University of London, was giving a lecture entitled, “Legal Problems of the Vassal! Tribunal,” in a series arranged by the adult education department of the University of Canterbury. Parliamentary committees, Professor Keeton said, gave the impression that the full truth might not come out. This was particularly illustrated by the committee of inquiry after the Jameson raid in 1896 and the great Marconi inquiry of 1912.

Professor Keeton said that 1921 was the beginning of the present system. This was probably the outcome of the unsatisfactory results of the two earlier Parliamentary committees.

Britain had had a number of grave political issues, he said. One was the “Budget leak" in 1935 which ended the career of Mr J. H. Thomas. There was also a number of tribunals after the war. One of them sifted possible connexions between Ministers of the Crown and a famous contact man named Sidney Stanley. Another

famous case investigated was the alleged “bank leak,” at which the present Lord Chief Justice (Lord Parker) presided. Professor Keeton said that at the time of tire “Budget 'leak” inquiry the Attorney-, General had greatly taken over the responsibility of opening the case and carrying out the primary examination of fhe witnesses. It was clearly established that, when he did this, he was not representing the Government or anyone else but the Court. On the question of costs, Professor Keeton said there was an increasing use of counsel in these cases. Where any witness was closely involved, he asked automatically for legal representation. That was expensive. Inquiries Into Rumours There had been cases in recent legal history, he said, in which tribunals had been set up to investigate rumours involving two Ministers of the Crown. ■ The men took care to be represented by legal aid of the very highest authority. In both cases, the bill they would have to pay would be very high indeed. The period of the inquiry was a long one. There was no provision for payment of any kind to help to bear the costs of investigations of rumours, he said. Since then, the whole question of costs had been gone into by the Government. The Government felt that it should be within the power of the tribunal to allot costs where the tribunal thought that legal representation was appropriate and presumably the amount was not excessive.

Professor Keeton said that the Vassal! case created very difficult problems for journalists, but the rules now appeared to be clear. The Labour Party, he said, asked for representation at the Vassall case, but the request was refused. The argument of the Labour Party was that the AttorneyGeneral was representing the Government. The Government’s answer was that the Attorney-Geneihl was representing the people. The Government’s answer, of course, was right.