§ MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that a cabman, named John Stanley—who was convicted at Beaumaris on a charge of assault upon a policeman, on whose sole evidence the sentence of six months' imprisonment was passed, and whose evidence was subsequently proved to be perjured, in consequence of which Stanley was released by an order from the Home Office—is at present precluded from obtaining any redress for the wrong done him in consequence of the judges having come to no conclusion, after several months, in the case of The Queen v. Hughes, Hughes being the policeman on whose testimony Stanley was convicted, and who now seeks a reversal of his own conviction for perjury on the ground of an original informality in the warrant obtained by him against Stanley; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a 232 view of obtaining some compensation for the injury Stanley has suffered?
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, in reply, said, it was perfectly true that a man named John Stanley was convicted last year on a charge of assaulting a policeman on the sole evidence of that policeman; it was subsequently proved that the evidence was perjured; and on the recommendation of the learned Judge who tried the ease John Stanley was released from prison. The Homo Office had no means of knowing whether an action such as that referred to by the hon. Member was pending, and had no power to force the Judges to come to a decision upon it. With reference to compensation, it was open to Stanley to proceed against the policeman for damages if he felt that he was entitled to them.