CRIMINAL LAW—INADEQUATE SENTENCES. (Hansard, 19 July 1881)

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been 1256 called to the case of a man named Lowe, who was tried at the Stafford Assizes for brutally assaulting and stabbing and then robbing a lady walking in a field in the neighbourhood of her residence, and to the sentence of twelve months' imprisonment passed on him for that crime; and, whether, having regard to the severe punishment inflicted in respect of offences affecting property and the light punishment which follows in cases of aggravated personal injury, he will consider the necessity of legislation in the next Session for the better protection of the lives and persons of Her Majesty's subjects?

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
, in reply, said, the question of his hon. Friend seemed to point to the opinion that the sentence passed by the Judge in this case was not adequate to the offence. His (Sir William Harcourt's) answer to that was, that this was a matter over which he had no control or jurisdiction. The Constitution of that country very wisely placed the administration of the Criminal Law in the hands of the judicial authorities. It was no part of his business or his duty to criticize the sentences of the Judges; and he had no power to alter them, if he thought them inadequate. In advising the Crown as to the Prerogative of mercy, the Secretary of State in consultation with the Judges, did sometimes, in rare cases, re-consider sentences; but as to the question of sentences being inadequate, the Secretary of State had no power to interfere with them, and, having no power, he ought not to pronounce any opinion upon a matter over which he had no authority. With regard to legislative measures to meet the evil at which his hon. Friend pointed, the Legislature had fixed a maximum; and, within that maximum, what punishments were to be inflicted must always depend on the discretion of the Judge. He was not aware that the Legislature had fixed upon maximum punishments which were too low, and it rested with the Judge how far, and to what extent, he would carry the punishment. The Legislature could not fix the absolute punishment to apply in all cases. Therefore, he thought his hon. Friend would see that was not a matter in which he (Sir William Harcourt) could properly interfere without trenching on functions on which he ought not to attempt to trench.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
asked, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not written to the Judge on the subject of the inadequacy of the punishment awarded?

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, no; certainly not. It would be highly improper for him to do so, in a matter in which he had no jurisdiction. How could he write to a Judge to say—"I think you have passed too light a sentence in this case;" because the Judge would very properly reply—"That is no affair of yours." His hon. Friend would see that he could not write to Judges, remonstrating with them for passing sentences, either for being too heavy or too light; because, by doing so, he would be assuming an authority which the Constitution of the country had not given him.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
asked if it was not usual to give to the House the Judge's explanation in cases of the kind? He should like also to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to give him, as an unopposed Return, copies of the depositions of the witnesses in this case? [Cries of "Order!"] That was a very serious matter, and he believed it was the first occasion in which the sentence of a Judge had been called in question on which the Secretary of State for the Home Department had not stated to the House the Judge's explanation of his reasons. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] In order to enable himself to make the remarks he thought necessary, he should conclude with a Motion. In this case the young lady had been most brutally treated. She had been recently married, and in addition to being brutally outraged, she was stabbed and otherwise seriously injured. He considered that a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for so serious an offence was absurd; and if the House was to be the grand inquest of the nation, they had a right to make some inquiry as to what he called a grave miscarriage of justice. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have no power in this matter, he had some influence, and he (Mr. Fowler) appealed to him to use that influence. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

§ MR. WIGGIN
, in seconding the Motion, said, the young lady, who had been recently married, was the wife of a pro- 1258 fessional gentleman in Birmingham, and in broad daylight was assaulted by the man who had been so inadequately punished. She was seized by the throat, knocked down, and violently assaulted, and when she resisted, a knife was used, and after being seriously stabbed in two places, she was robbed of £4 or £5. The feeling in the neighbourhood was one of expectation that the man would be sent to penal servitude, accompanied by 20 or 25 lashes with the cat; but he only got 12 months' imprisonment. He was told that the prisoner pleaded guilty, and called no witnesses, and the Judge, in looking over the depositions, said that the old lady appeared to have acted with courage. The lady had certainly acted with courage, but, instead of being old, she was only 24 years of age.

§ MR. MACFARLANE
said, he had a Notice on the Paper, calling attention to a number of serious brutal outrages which were a scandal to the administration of our justice; but he had not had an opportunity of bringing this matter before the House. He thought the case brought forward by the hon. Member (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was a very trifling one compared with some he could relate; but he wished to express his thanks to the hon. Member for having brought the matter to the notice of the House, for it was a scandal to the administration of justice.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, he would point out that the moving of the Adjournment of the House was not the proper course to take in a matter of that kind. There was only one form in which cognizance of the conduct of Judges could be taken by the House, when it thought proper to interfere in a case of the kind, and that was by moving an Address to the Crown. There was nothing more important than that the independence of the Judges of this country should be maintained; but his hon. Friend asked the House, at a moment's notice, on what was necessarily a very brief statement of the case, to condemn the conduct of the Judge. He (Sir William Harcourt) neither condemned nor acquitted him, because it was not his duty to do so. The House had the power, in the last resort, of 1259 censuring the conduct of a Judge; but it was a serious matter, which should only be done on full Notice and by an Address to the Crown, otherwise the House would be assuming the functions of a Court of Review over offences, and it was very unfitted for that. He ventured to suggest to his hon. Friend that it was impossible, on a Motion for Adjournment, to adequately consider the question; but he would consider the subject further as to whether there was anything proper or right to be done in the matter; and, if so, would be happy to communicate with his hon. Friend on the subject.

§ MR. HEALY
said, that while an English ruffian only got 12 months' imprisonment for brutally outraging a young lady, and stabbing her, an Irishman in Ireland got 18 months' imprisonment, at the beck of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, for merely opening his mouth and expressing his opinion on the Land Laws.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
thought the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory, and he would communicate with him privately on the matter. He asked that the Motion should be withdrawn.