SIR.—As the telephone-tapping controversy has broken out afresh, let me
interpolate a few remarks on the gross unfairness of proceedings before com- mittees of Privy Councillors. As you are aware, statements made before these bodies enjoy a qualified privilege so far as the laws of defamation are con- cerned and are not tested for veracity according to the established rules of evidence. In my case, let nte quote what Sir Hartley Shawcross said to me when 1 appeared before the Bar Council in February, 1957. He said : 'You are not being accused of going to parties with Hill, you are being accused of acting in a way which might perhaps have been appropriate for a solicitor, who was prepared to act for a man of this kind but which was quite unsuitable for a barrister.'
Then in a letter which he wrote to me longhand and marked `Private,' and of which he kept a copy, later handed over to the Benchers of Lincoln's Inn, Joe concluded with these words :
'1 know the temptations, and pitfalls of the Bar
and I am very sorry for the position in which you find yourself. Yours sincerely, Hartley Shawcross.'
these statements with those attributed to Sir Hartley Compare, if you will, and reconcile, if you can, in Paragraph 96 of the Birkett Report, in which it was stated : 'Apart from the evidence contained in the tele- phone intercepts, there was a great deal of addi- tional evidence in Sir Hartley's possession concerning Mr. Marrinan which in Sir Hartley's view: directly affected the integrity of the Bar and the proper ad- ministration of justice.'
So you see we are back to Humpty-Dumpty again and words mean what you choose them to mean, all according to the venue.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
