The Gazette 1967/71

"In deciding whether 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 to prosecute, 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 NORTHERN IRELAND CRITICISED BY JUDGE

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) 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 SOLICITORS SUE MP OVER 'INQUIRY' LETTER TO LAW SOCIETY