§ MR. HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the unfortunate circumstances attending the arrest of Miss Cass were not referred, according to the usual practice of the Home Office in cases of police misconduct possibly forming the subject of ulterior prosecution, to the Solicitor to the Treasury to 1770 investigate the facts, take the necessary statements, and, with the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, to institute such proceedings as were warranted by the circumstances and desirable in the public interest? The hon. Member also asked, Under what statutory authority Police constable Endacott was yesterday subjected at the hands of Mr. Grain, Barrister at Law, to a public cross-examination to credit, embracing matter wholly foreign to the inquiry in point, and inflicting pain and injury on other persons; what precedent or judicial authority there is for the interrogation, either public or private, of a person complained of for an alleged illegal action for which he may have to take his trial; and, for the examination of a witness in the absence of an accused person?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)It is not unusual with the Home Office, when complaint is made of the misconduct of a policeman in the discharge of his duty, and that misconduct has not been ascertained in any Court, for the Commissioner to inquire into the subject-matter of the complaint, before referring it to the Solicitor to the Treasury with a view to a prosecution. That inquiry was directed, in the case of Miss Cass, on the complaint of Mrs. Bowman, and after discussion in this House. In the usual course it would have been a private inquiry. In this case, however, it was hardly possible to keep the inquiry private; but the Representatives of the Press were only admitted upon the legal adviser of Miss Cass and Mrs. Bowman expressing the desire that they should be present. There is no authority, statutory or otherwise, under which persons can be compelled to attend such an inquiry or to answer questions. Their answers are purely voluntary, and Police-constable Endacott was not required by the Commissioner to say anything for himself or to answer the questions which the counsel for Miss Cass and Mrs. Bowman thought fit to put to him.
§ MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Homo Secretary, whether the Commissioner of Police was sitting in a magisterial or disciplinary capacity; and, if he could give any precedent for an inquiry of this nature?
§ MR. MATTHEWSthe Commissioner of Police is sitting upon this inquiry as the head of the Police Force 1771 interested, therefore, in ascertaining whether the conduct of a member of the Force has been proper or improper, and whether there is any ground for further proceedings with regard to that particular member of the Force. I should say, on the whole, that the Commissioner sat in a disciplinary capacity. I do not know how to deal with my hon. Friend's adjective; but it is a matter of discipline rather than anything else. Such, an inquiry is, I may say, the rule. If the misconduct of a policeman has been established by sworn evidence before a magistrate, then no inquiry by the Commissioner is necessary before visiting the policeman with punishment; but where the facts have not been ascertained in any authentic way, it is most usual for the Commissioner to make inquiry.
§ MR. HOWARD VINCENTI am sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend; but I must ask, is there any precedent for a public inquiry; and, if it is found that Police-constable Endacott's evidence at the Police Court was unsatisfactory, after his interrogation at Scotland Yard, it is possible to institute legal proceedings against him?
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)asked if the witnesses were sworn?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThey are not, nor, as I hare said before, can they be sworn by law. With regard to the question whether there is precedent for the inquiry being public, there is not, so far as I am aware, and if I may be allowed to express my own preference, I think the inquiry should have been private. But, considering the public excitement the case created, it would not have been possible to keep the subject-matter altogether private, so as to prevent some news of its getting into the newspapers; and, accordingly, I directed that, at Miss Cass's direct wish, the Press should be allowed to be present at the inquiry. Everything, therefore, that has taken place is fully known, and it cannot prejudice Constable Endacott, as he was not obliged to make any statement.
§ MR. HOWARD VINCENTThis is a very important matter, and as the right hon. Gentleman says there is no precedent for a public inquiry he will pardon me asking him whether there is any precedent for a person who may be proceeded against for an illegal action, 1772 for which he may have to take his trial, being interrogated regarding it either in public or in private?
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman adopted or repelled the statement that Mr. Grain, counsel for Miss Cass, had introduced matter wholly foreign to the inquiry, and calculated to inflict pain and injury on others?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI do not think I ought to be asked to express an opinion on a question of that sort. Presumably Mr. Grain acted according to the best of his lights and his instructions. In answer to the question of my hon. Friend, I should think there were precedents for interrogating a person against whom an action for an illegal offence might lie. It is a matter of every-day practice. Take the case, for instance, of a servant supposed to be guilty of theft. The employer would interrogate the individual before dismissal.
§ MR. HOWARD VINCENTI beg to give Notice that if a prosecution is directed after this public inquiry, it will be my duty to call the attention of the House to the matter.