HC Deb 16 July 1888 vol 328 cc1400-1
MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as to the case of Mr. Latchford, J.P., who was sentenced on June 9, at Tralee, to a month's imprisonment, Whether the two Resident Magistrates refused to increase the sentence for the purpose of appeal, and also refused to state a case; on what grounds proceedings were taken under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act instead of in the ordinary Court of Petty Sessions; by whose authority the case was tried under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and, to whom the duty is, in practice, committed of determining when proceedings shall be taken under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

I am informed that there was no question of law involved, and therefore no case was stated. The proceedings were instituted under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, the case being one of riot, in which the ordinary Petty Sessions Court has no summary jurisdiction. The Divisional Magistrate directed the trial of the case under the Act mentioned. In practice, the duty of determining when proceed- ings shall be taken under that Act is committed to the Divisional Magistrate of the district in which the offence occurs.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I wish to know whether in a case like this, which was undoubtedly one of assault, and which would have been triable by the ordinary magistrates at Petty Sessions, it rested with the Divisional Magistrate to determine whether summonses should be issued for riot or for assault?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that the charge was not for assault but for riot; and the magistrate in the exercise of his discretion decided—and I think rightly decided—that the case should be tried by a summary process, rather than by the expensive process of indictment.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

This is an important question. It is alleged that the Divisional Magistrate had had a political difference with Mr. Latchford; and I want to know whether the Chief Secretary approves the Divisional Magistrate's causing summonses to be issued for riot instead of assault in order to bring this gentleman within the machinery of the Crimes Act, when he could be tried by the ordinary Court of Petty Session?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have no information to enable me to say whether the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is correct as to matters of fact or not. It is true that the Divisional Magistrate decided that the case should be tried before a Crimes Act Court rather than by indictment; but there is no ground for believing that the Divisional Magistrate decided that proceedings should be taken for riot rather than for assault. I have heard no whisper to the effect that the Divisional Magistrate had any political difference with Mr. Latchford. I think it has been suggested in this House that one of the magistrates in the case had a difference; but I believe that it is not a fact.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I will bring the whole case before the House on the Estimates.