Reports of Committees
| Date | 01 October 1939 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1939.tb00754.x |
| Published date | 01 October 1939 |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
I53
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
The
ofacial
Secrets Act-Report
of
the
Select
Committee
1989
This committee was appointed as a result of the
Sandys Case
in June,
1938.
A discussion of the case and of the committee’s report thereon will
be found in the
MODERN
LAW REVIEW, Vol. 11, pages
163
and
231.
The
present report makes no further mention of these matters, and
is
confined
to an examination of the Official Secrets Acts,
1911
and
1920,
in relation
to their bcaring upon privilege of Parliament.
It
is freedom of speech which is principally in issue and the committee
express the decided opinion that this privilege protects Members
of
Parliament from prosecutions under the statutes in question
so
far
as
words spoken in debate or in the course of Parliamentary proceedings are
concerned. The argument that privilege cannot protect against
a
criminal
offence is brushecl aside with the ingenious reply that crimes committed
by a member otherwise than in his capacity as a Member of Parliament
will not be protected. This test may not be
so
easy to apply as appears
at first sight; for example, would
it
have furnished a valid defence to a
prosecution for assault in the recent case where during the proceedings
of the House of Commons one membcr struck another
?
The only question in regard to this part
of
the discussion on which
the committee are hesitant is as to the scope of the term “proceedings in
Parliament.” They are clear, however, that it goes
so
far as
TO
cover
“both the asking of a question and the giving notice of such question,
and includes everything said or done by
a
member in the exercise of his
functions as
a
member in
a
committee of either house.” They think that
there may be cases where the privilege goes still further, but beyond
referring to communications passing between members or between
a
member and a minister, which they think in certain cases would qualify
for privilege, they are rightly hesitant to hazard any opinions.
It
will be
observed, however, that the actual incidents of the
Sandys Case
are
covered by these passages of the report. On the other hand, they have
no doubt that
a
member who discloses official secrets in
a
speech to his
constituents has no claim for protection.
Perhaps the most troublesome question discussed is as to how far
s.
6
of the
xgzo
Act applies to Members of Parliament. This section imposes
the duty of giving information to the police about offences or suspected
offences. The point here would be most likely to arise, as in the
Sandys
Case,
where some speech made in Parliament indicated that the speaker
had received information which could only have come to him after an
offence under the Acts. The committee are hesitant upon this topic, which
is in the writer’s view of greater practical importance than they will allow,
and this part of their report
is
the least satisfactory. They appear to
think that such a case
is
not directly covered by parliamentary privilege,
although indirectly the member might obtain some protection from the
rule that no evidence can be given of debates or proceedings in Parliament
except by leave of the house in which they took place. The committee also
mention various reasons why in their opinion the question
is
not likely
to come to an issue, overlooking the fact that
it
is pretty obvious that
these safeguards would not have operated in the
Sandys Case
itself but
for the energy and courage of Mr. Sandys. Nor do we think that their
To continue reading
Request your trial