HC Deb 11 May 1932 vol 265 cc1911-2
61. Mr. McGOVERN

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if and when it is proposed to take legal proceedings against the warders found guilty of illicit actions in the report of the Du Parcq inquiry?

Sir H. SAMUEL

Whenever evidence is forthcoming that a prison officer has been guilty of an illicit act, appropriate action is taken—but legal proceedings are only practicable when there is evidence on which to base a charge against some individual or individuals.

Mr. McGOVERN

As I understand the report, it is suggested that the warders were guilty of illicit actions. Cannot they be put on trial, after investigation, in the same way as the convicts were?

Sir H. SAMUEL

In his report the Commissioner was careful to say that he made no allegations against any particular individual, but only expressed his impression that there was a small number of individuals probably guilty of some illicit action. But no evidence has been forthcoming on which any charge can be based against any particular person.

Mr. MAXTON

Then have no steps, disciplinary or of any kind, been taken against those warders about whom Mr. Du Parcq was so sure that he gave a special paragraph to them in the report?

Sir H. SAMUEL

Mr. Du Parcq did not mention any particular warders. Very careful inquiry has been made to see if any charge can be brought home to any particular warder, but no evidence has been forthcoming.

Mr. MAXTON

May we take it that that particular paragraph in the report is quite unfounded?

Sir H. SAMUEL

No, I do not think that is the conclusion. There may or may not have been adequate ground for it, but it is impossible for the Home Office to take action in the absence of specific evidence.

Mr. MAXTON

I am sorry to press this matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that without evidence Mr. Du Parcq would commit himself to a statement of that description?

Sir H. SAMUEL

No, Sir. He made that statement, because certain things were found in the prison which led him to the conclusion that some warder must have been guilty of illicit practices. That is a different thing from being able to identify the particular warder and prosecute him.