HC Deb 10 August 1869 vol 198 cc1530-2
MR. BRUCE

said, he wished to say a few words in regard to a Question put to him on Friday last by the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther), in the absence of the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson), as to the inequality of sentences passed by the Judges during the present Assizes. The Notice only appeared in the Paper on the morning of the day on which his answer was given, and having had no opportunity of communicating with the learned Judges, he could give no other than a vague and. general answer. He had since received communications from two of the learned Judges, and it was for the interest of public justice that the substance of these communications should be made known. One was from Mr. Justice Keating, who sentenced a man named William Rapson Oates — a herbalist, who was charged at the Bodmin Assizes with obtaining £2 5s. under false pretences — to five years' penal servitude, although the jury recommended the prisoner to mercy. Mr. Justice Keating stated— It is quite true that the sentence was as stated, and the recommendation by the jury given. But when it appeared that the prisoner had previously been convicted twice in 1868, once for obtaining money under false pretences, four months' hard labour, and once for larceny, with nine months' hard labour, besides having been in gaol under convictions as a vagrant and for assault, one month each, in 1860 and 1806, the jury stated they wished to withdraw their recommendation, which, they said, they never would have made if they had known the facts. I may add, that after getting the £2 5s. from the poor prosecutrix, he endeavoured the following day to obtain £1 under the same false pretence that he was the second son of the head warder of the gaol at Bodmin, who was known to her, and on whose account she advanced the money. I considered that the public had a right to be protected against a very clever and expert swindler and thief, and passed the sentence complained of. The other sentence was passed by Mr. Justice Mellor. The hon. Member said of it that it was the case of A man named Simmons, convicted for feloniously killing his wife at Redhill. Details very revolting and brutal; guilty, but recommended to mercy; not concurred in by the Judge; sentence, five years' penal servitude. The learned Judge wrote— In the case of Simmons, charged with the manslaughter of his wife, I heard no evidence of any kick or act of violence done by the prisoner other than that of the pushing which caused her fall. It is true the doctor stated that injuries such as he found might have been occasioned by the prisoner knocking down his wife and then kicking her; but, in answer to a question put by me, he stated that on the post Wortem examination he found no marks or bruises which might not have been caused by her falling down stairs. The daughter of the prisoner stated that she saw him pushing her mother out at the door, but did not see her fall. In answer to questions from me, she said that there was a landing-place outside the door of the chamber, the size of which she pointed out to the jury by referring to a partition in the court. The jury were of opinion that the prisoner had no intention to push the deceased downstairs, and recommended him to mercy. I delayed to pass sentence because I did not feel sure that I rightly understood the reasons upon which the recommendation was based. Upon considering the evidence of the daughter, it appeared to me that it might afford a reasonable foundation for the recommendation, and I accordingly passed the mitigated sentence of five years' penal servitude. The next ease showed that the hon. Baronet who put the Notice on the Paper was not acquainted with the facts. His words were— Case 2, same Court, a man named Fyfield, convicted for feloniously cutting and wounding his wife with intent to murder her; details very bad; guilty; a bad case of unlawfully wounding; sentence, eighteen months' imprisonment." The Judge wrote— With reference to Fyfield's case the question assumes that he was 'convicted of feloniously cutting and wounding his wife with intent to murder her/ whereas he was acquitted of the felony and of the intent to murder, and of the intent to do grievous bodily harm, and convicted of the misdemeanour of unlawfully wounding only. I passed upon him the sentence of eighteen months imprisonment with hard labour. Of the third case, where it was alleged that a man who severely beat another with his fists was sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude, the Judge said— In Gore's case, the indictment charged him with feloniously doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm. It appeared that under the pretence of buying a collar the prisoner went into the shop of the prosecutor, struck him behind the ear, and beat him with ' his fists' until he became insensible, remaining in that condition for many hours; spitting of blood followed, accompanied by other symptoms of so grave a character that the surgeon expressed a strong opinion that he will never recover, and will most probably speedily die as the result of the violence of the prisoner. He fainted as he left the Court. The avowed motive of the prisoner was revenge against the unfortunate prosecutor for having given evidence against him on a trial for assaulting the police. Two considerations influenced me in the sentence which I passed—in the first place, the grave and dangerous character of the violence inflicted; in the second place, the necessity of throwing such protection around witnesses who may hereafter be compelled to give evidence as a severe sentence was calculated to afford. My practice is to make a great distinction in the punishment of crimes of violence committed deliberately and with malice aforethought, and crimes of violence committed without premeditation and without malice aforethought. I endeavoured to apply this distinction in the sentences referred to; whether I succeeded or not I leave to the judgment of others.