HC Deb 21 July 1887 vol 317 cc1624-6
MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Middlesex Magistrates on Saturday, quashing the conviction of Mr. Williams, who, along with six other defendants, was sentenced by Mr. De Rutzen, on the 27th April, at the Marylebone Police Court, to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, on a charge of assaulting the police in the execution of their duty; whether Mr. De Rutzen then stated that the sentence was— Wholly inadequate in the case of Williams, whom he designated as the leader, and the person most to blame; whether Mr. Williams on Saturday called witnesses who "described the police as having been very rough indeed;" whether he is aware that the other defendants, or several of them, were prevented from appealing by their poverty and inability to obtain bail, which Mr. De Rutzen refused to reduce; and, whether, in all the circumstances of the case, he will at once order the release of all the defendants who are now in prison?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

There was no joint charge proceeded with before Mr. De Rutzen; but only separate charges against the several defendants for assaulting different police constables in the execution of their duty. This course was taken on the responsibility of the prosecuting counsel; and it gave the defendants the advantage of being admissible witnesses in all the cases except the one in which each was charged with what he himself had done. The Middlesex Quarter Sessions quashed the conviction of Williams on the production of fresh evidence which had not been produced before Mr. De Rutzen, and which raised doubt in their minds as to the fact of the assault by him. This decision does not, so far as I know, throw any doubt upon the propriety of, Mr. De Rutzen's decision in the case of the other defendants, nor, indeed, in the case of Williams, upon the evidence as it stood in the Police Court. The usual rules were followed in the matter of bail as to the other defendants who did not appeal. I cannot, therefore, follow the course suggested by the hon. Member of at once ordering their release; but I have applied to the Middlesex Chairman for a copy of the evidence before him, with a view to seeing whether it in any way affects the case of defendants other than Williams.

MR. PICKERSGILL

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been specially drawn to the fact that, in passing sentence, Mr. De Rutzen stated that Williams was the leader and person most to blame; and whether the meaning of the quashing of the sentence against Williams was that the Middlesex Magistrates did not believe the testimony of the police, and yet the six other defendants were convicted upon the uncorroborated evidence of the police?

MR. MATTHEWS

believed that Mr. De Rutzen did use the expression quoted, or words to that effect; but, according to the Report he had received, the Middlesex Quarter Sessions received fresh evidence, which induced them to doubt the accuracy of the evidence on which Mr. De Rutzen founded his decision.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

asked, whether, seeing that the disturbances with which the prisoners were said to have been connected had long ceased, and the sentences were un- doubtedly severe, the case might not be one for the mercy of the Crown?

MR. MATTHEWS

That matter is well worthy of consideration.