No Prosecutions Are To Be Made

Wanganui Chronicle, 5 February 1949, Page 5

No Prosecutions Are To Be Made

LONDON’, Feb. 4 (Rec. 6 pm).—Resigning from the House of Commons, and tendering it an apology for any injudicious actions or indiscretions which had brought about the recent Lynskey Tribunal of Inquiry, Mr. John Belcher, formerly junior Minister, said in the House yesterday: “Today I am touching the very depths of unhappiness and wretchedness because of my desire to assist in maintaining the standards of this House. I propose forthwith to apply for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds.

“I alone know what were the motives that prompted me to undertake any activities, and because I know my motives were proper, whatever appearance may have emerged as a result of the inquiries, and although nn heart is heavy as I leave this chamber, my head will not be bowed. 1 shall face my difficult, uncertain future with the courage which comes from knowing that, however indiscreet one may have been and however foolish, one has tried to act according to one’s light.”

There was a low muriner of suppressed cheering as Belcher left his seat and walked quickly from the chamber. Mr. Attlee then moved the adoption of the Lynskey report.

Earlier, the Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, had announced that no criminal proceedings would be instituted as a result of the Lynskey Tribunal report. He added that Stanley’s position was still engaging the attention of the proper authorities.

After Mr. Belcher’s statement, Mr. Attlee moved the adoption of the report. He announced that the Polish authorities were being asked to recognise Stanley as a Polish citizen, with a view to his removal from England. Mr. Attlee also announced that he had decided to set up a committee to inquire into the activities of “contact men.” Sir Edwin Herbert, a wellknown solicitor, would be chair The names of the other members would be announced in a few days. The Attorney-General made If statement in reply to a question by Mr. Churchill, who asked whether he had decided to institute criminal proceedings arising from the tribunal’s report.

Sir Hartley Shawcross said the Director of Public Prosecutions had advised him that there was prima facie evidence of certain offences, but he did not consider on the information available that proceedings should be taken. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to establish the commission of criminal offences without the use of information and statements obtanied through the exercise of compulsory power's. Additionally, it was a fundamental principle of the administration of criminal law that juries could act only on the evidence before them. It would be impossible to empanel a jury which was not familiar with the findings of fact made by the tribunal, and with much of the evidence on which those findings were based. “I am satisfied that the requirements of public justice have been, or ! will be sufficiently met without crimi- | nal proceedings,” Sir Hartley said. The possibility of judicial or administrative action under the Aliens Act, the Bankruptcy Act or revenue law have not been precluded.

Sir Hartley also said that the mere fact that a person had been compulsorily before the tribunal could not preclude the prosecution of that person if other evidence against him were available.