Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Robert Rogers, Clerk of the House of Commons—Written evidence
SECOND REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES
SESSION 1977-78 (HC 667)
The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred the matter of publication of the proceedings of
the House, other than by order of the House, in so far as the Privileges of this House are concerned,
and the matter of the application of the sub judice rule during Business Questions on Thursday 20
April, have agreed to the following Report:-
1. During proceedings at Tottenham Magistrates' Court in November 1977 in connection
with charges under the Official Secrets Acts, a witness who was an officer of the security
services was allowed, under a ruling of the Court, to give evidence anonymously, as Colonel
“B”. The Colonel's name was subsequently published in December by the Leveller magazine
and by others, who were then charged in March 1978 with contempt of court. The hearing
of the case was set down for 24 April, but judgement was not given until 19 May.
Meanwhile, on 20 April the officer's name was disclosed in the House, during questions
following the Business statement, by the honourable Members for Barking, Lewisham West,
Ormskirk, and Bristol North-West. The name was thereafter published in the Official
Report, in certain newspaper reports on the following day and in that day's broadcast of the
House’s proceedings.
2. During the evening of 20 April, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued the following
statement as a result of enquiries by the Press: “The legality of revealing the identity of
Colonel B, a witness in the prosecution of Aubrey, Berry and Campbell, is the subject
matter of pending proceedings for contempt of court before the Divisional Court of the
High Court of Justice. It is not accepted, despite the naming of the colonel on the floor of
the House of Commons, that the publication of his name would not be a contempt of court,
even if it was part of a report of proceedings in the House.”
3. The Director of Public Prosecutions’ action was raised at 10 p.m. in the House, and on a
submission by the Rt Hon Member for Crosby, Mr Speaker ruled, on the morning of 21
April, that the issuing of the statement was not a matter which he considered should have
precedence over the Orders' of the day. Mr Speaker further informed the House on 24
April that he considered that, in view of the fact that proceedings for contempt of Court
were pending on 20 April, the identification of Colonel “B” by the four Members had been
an infringement of the House's sub judice rule. A number of early day motions were
simultaneously tabled on various aspects of the situation, namely the action of the Director
of Public Prosecutions, the conduct of the Members who identified Colonel “B”, and Mr
Speaker's ruling of 21 April.
4. On 2 May, the House agreed to a Government motion referring the whole matter to
Your Committee. In the course of his speech, the Leader of the House expressed the
opinion 'that the motion was wide enough to enable Your Committee to consider all
relevant questions, including those raised in the early day motions.
S. From these facts a number of questions arise, some of which fall outside the area of
investigation which is normally referred to Your Committee.
Statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions
6. However, Your Committee consider that there is one matter which can and should, be
disposed of as soon as possible. That is whether the action of the Director of Public
198