HC Deb 27 February 1896 vol 37 cc1257-8
MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department— (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the Thames Police Court on Wednesday last, on the hearing of charges brought by the police against two licence-holders, named Hayes and Keife, for failing to report themselves, when the magistrate in discharging both men is reported to have said that he did not believe either of them had any intention of concealing his address, and as regards Keife, it was to be very much regretted that such a prosecution had been brought; and he would see that Keife, who had been anxious to do all he could to earn an honest living, and was so doing at the time of his arrest, did not suffer; (2) whether the prosecution of Keife and Hayes received the express sanction of the Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard, in accordance with the regulations; (3) whether it is true, as stated in evidence, that forms requiring licence-holders to report themselves personally at a police station once a month were forwarded in bulk from Scotland Yard, with the Commissioner's signature already stamped upon them; and (4) whether Inspector Drywood, who, on the 15th January, served Hayes at the Shadwell Police Station with one of these forms, was authorised by the Chief Commissioner to do this act in his behalf; and, if so, what was the date and the form of such authorisation?

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

As regards the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I am informed that the facts are correctly stated by him except that the magistrate did not say that he would see Keife did not suffer. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative, and I am of opinion, after reading the magistrate's report of the cases, that the police were justified in instituting the prosecutions. The practice with regard to the forms was correctly stated in evidence, but the magistrate states that he elicited the facts in order in case of conviction to raise the question of the legality of the practice, which he considers doubtful. The majority, however, if not all of the magistrate's colleagues think the practice to be correct; my predecessor was so advised in 1892, and I see no reason to doubt its legality. Inspector Drywood was duly authorised to act under a delegation dated 30th November, 1891.