CAB129-45 — Page 302

Page 302

only one of the four concerned has admitted to causing the damage to the throne accidentally as he says and proceedings could only be taken against him and possibly, although with no certainty of success, against the man actually with him at the time.

5.

In these circumstances I have to consider the question of instituting proceedings in the light of the general principles I indicated in a speech on the adjournment (Hansard, Cols. 683-690, 29th January, 1951). The Attorney-General never prosecutes simply because there is what the lawyers call a case. Others can set the Criminal Law into motion: he only intervenes in such offences as arise here when he considers the public interest demands it. I do not think that is the case here: there is no continuing offence, no great likelihood that such an offence will be repeated, no great principle of constitutional policy involved. Moreover, I am satisfied that a prosecution would do no good except perhaps to the defendants to whom it would give the opportunity of being regarded as martyrs if they were convicted or as heroes if they were acquitted. I am aware that the Archbishop and the Dean have expressed strong views which one can understand, but my impression is that in general public opinion in England is bored with the whole matter and there is certainly no enthusiam for a prosecution. In Scotland a prosecution would produce a very adverse reaction.

6

I realise that there are some who will say that since, e.g. the dockers were prosecuted, these presumably middle class offenders should not be allowed to go free. I have, however, very rarely prosecuted for offences connected with Order 1305 although very many such offences have been committed. In the recent case proceedings were taken because the offences were still continuing and there was a grave threat of their extension on a large scale. The two cases are, therefore, totally different.

Unless, therefore, my colleagues have other matters which they would wish me to consider, I propose to answer a Parliamentary Question on Thursday in the following terms:

"Yes Sir. Officers from Scotland Yard conducted very full and, if I may say so, very able enquiries into this deplorable matter and I have now considered their report. The report included statements by three out of the four persons who are believed to have been concerned in removing the Stone from Westminster Abbey, in which each admitted the part he himself had played but did not implicate others, indicate the then whereabouts of the Stone, or state how the Stone had become damaged. No legally admissible evidence has yet been secured as to those who planned and financed the matter. The clandestine removal of the Stone from West- minster Abbey was a vulgar and disgraceful act of hooliganism which has caused great distress and offence both in England and Scotland, and has brought the individuals concerned and the cause they pretend to serve into great disrepute. I do not, however, think that the public interest requires that I should direct criminal proceedings to be taken."

Royal Courts of Justice, W. C. 2.,

17TH APRIL, 1951.

Page 302

H. W.S.

Page 302

-2-

G.R.

Page 303 of $87

2

Page 303.

239