Dear Mr Kinnock,
Thank you for your letter of February 12.
You are avoiding the point.
I told you, and the Attorney General confirmed, that I was not involved in the decision to prosecute Mr Ponting. You said you did not believe me.
An honourable man would substantiate or withdraw. You have not substantiated and I know you cannot do so. Will you withdraw?
[end p1]Dear Prime Minister,
I have your further letter, in which you repeat your statement that you were not involved in the decision to prosecute Mr Ponting.
That decision involved a number of states, including firstly, of course; the decision not to fulfill the arrangement by which Mr Ponting had been given to understand that he would not be prosecuted but allowed to resign; secondly, the subsequent submission of the police report to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Law Officers; and thirdly, their decision to authorise proceedings.
You will recall telling me, in your letter of 19 September 1984 enclosing a copy of your letter of the 14th September to David Owen, that on Monday 13th August—three days before the police report reached the Director of Public Prosecutions— “The Defence Secretary and I were told of the outcome of the inquiry (i.e. by the Ministry of Defence) and that the matter had been referred to the Director” , but that “in the succeeding days” neither you nor other Ministers intervened.
In view of the fact that Mr Ponting has stated on oath that he was told he would not be prosecuted but allowed to resign, and in view of the fact that Prosecuting Counsel told the court that there had been no damage to national security, it is obviously essential that a full and adequate explanation of the involvement of you and your Ministers in the decision to prosecute Mr Ponting is given to the House.
Unless and until I receive that full and adequate explanation, my words to the House stand.
Yours sincerely
Neil Kinnock