HC Deb 20 February 1890 vol 341 cc754-5
MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the trial on the 20th December, 1889, at Warwick, of a surgeon in Birmingham for manslaughter; whether it is correct that the jury acquitted the prisoner without hearing the defence, and that Mr. Justice Wills stated— I think that this is a very harsh prosecution. I cannot help feeling that very hard measure has been dealt out to this man. Everything has been pushed against him in a fashion and spirit which makes it difficult for me to speak quite calmly about it There was no reasonable case against him, and, in order to mark my sense of these proceedings, I shall disallow the costs of the prosecution; whether it is correct that the prosecuting counsel stated that he had himself Formed a strong opinion about the case, and had made that opinion known to the Treasury; whether this prosecution was instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions; and out of what funds will the costs of the prosecution, which the Judge disallowed, be paid?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R, WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)

My attention has been called to the trial in question, and I have carefully considered the whole casa. I believe the words quoted are a correct report of the observations attributed to Mr. Justice Wills and the junior prosecuting counsel; but the learned counsel, as he has since frankly admitted to me, was mistaken as to his having communicated to the Director of Public Prosecutions the opinion he had formed. The case was one of a charge against a medical man for causing the death of a woman in humble circumstances, and the Coroner's Jury had found a verdict of manslaughter. The prosecution was undertaken by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who acted throughout under the advice of two members of the Midland Circuit of great experience in criminal cases. Having considered the depositions, I am of opinion that, as the Grand Jury had found a true Bill, the Director was right in presenting the case for trial. Certainly the responsibility, if any, rested with the learned counsel and. not with him. I am informed that, had the Grand Jury thrown out the Bill, it was not intended to offer any evidence in support of the Coroner's inquisition. The costs of the prosecution, which the Judge disallowed, will be paid out of the Vote for the expenses of the Public Prosecutor.

MR. MACWEILL

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an assurance, as one of the principal Law Officers of the Crown, that he will do all he can to check and discountenance all distinctions between the English and Irish Law Procedure?

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! That is not a question which arises out of the answer.