HC Deb 26 February 1897 vol 46 cc1249-50
MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the fact that on the conviction at Lewes Assizes of a woman named Manning, on, charge of obtaining money by false pretences, a, communication was received from the Home Office asking that the Court should be informed of large number of warrants relating to other charges in different parts of the country which were out against the prisoner, so that they might be taken into consideration by the judge in aggravation of sentence, will he explain what steps does he propose to take in order to obtain the withdrawal of these warrants, or to prevent the execution of them when the woman comes out of prison, so that she may not be twice punished for the same offences?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,) Lancashire, Blackpool

I entirely repudiate the construction which the hon. Member puts upon the Home Office action in this case. The object of the communication, which was sent out in pursuance of a policy that is not a new one, and has been well considered and was recently discussed with Her Majesty's Judges, was in the interests of the prisoner, that, as far as possible, the various offences of the same kind committed by her might be taken into account at one time, and her repeated re-arrest at the prison gates might be avoided. Having since learned that the Court, in passing sentence, took into consideration the fact that there were these other offences, I have informed the police authorities concerned that such was the case I have no power, of course, to prevent the execution of the warrants for the other offences, but I have generally found that the steps which have been taken in the present case are effectual for the purpose of preventing repeated prosecutions for what is practically the same offence, and I hope they will be equally effectual in this case also. I should not hesitate, however, if I were satisfied that the prisoner was being punished twice for the same offence, in recommending the; exercise of the prerogative of the Crown.

MR. PICKERSGILL

asked, with regard to the Instruction to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, as it apparently sanctioned the practice of allowing hearsay evidence against a prisoner after conviction, so that it might be taken into consideration by, Judge in aggravation of sentence, if copy of the Instruction would be laid on the Table?

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

said he had issued the circular with the view of relieving prisoners who were convicted from being, after sentence, again arrested for actually the same offence. It was really in the interest, not against the interest, of prisoners. He did not know that he could do more.

MR. PICKERSGILL

pressed the right hon. Gentleman to lay a copy of the circular on the Table.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

said the circular had been sent all round to all the authorities, and he did not see there would be any advantage in laying a copy on the Table.

MR. PICKERSGILL

asked, would the right hon. Gentleman send him a copy?

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

had not the slightest objection to do so.