§ MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether representations were made to the Home Office on 4th April, 1906, respecting the case of Richard Flynn, who was arrested, convicted, and sentenced at the Clerkenwell Sessions, 7th June, 1905, for an alleged watch robbery; whether he is aware that in the first trial, on 6th June, 1905, the jury after due deliberation did not agree that Flynn was guilty, and that he was accordingly discharged, but was arrested next day, 7th June, 1905, tried upon the same charge, and convicted, and that the detective, Burrell, who made the charge against Flynn was the same officer who had a case before the Marylebone Police Court on 24th May, 1905, in which Flynn gave evidence in favour of the innocence of the accused; whether he is aware that Flynn was arrested outside the Marylebone Police Court on the mere statement of someone in court who alleged that he recognised Flynn as one of a gang concerned in a watch robbery; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, he will institute inquiries with a view to ascertaining whether justice has been done.
§ MR. GLADSTONEThe whole case has received the most careful consideration both from myself and from the late Home Secretary. Flynn was recognised at the Marylebone Police Court on the 24th May, 1905, by two persons as the man who was concerned with another in a robbery committed on one of them; these persons were most positive in their identification and the police would have altogether failed in their duty if they had not arrested and charged him with the felony. On the 6th June, the first jury empannelled to try the charge could not agree; Flynn, of course, was not discharged, but following the ordin- 744 ary course, he was put up for trial by a second jury, who, after a careful hearing, found a verdict of guilty. In consequence of his strenuous assertions of innocence the police instituted most exhaustive inquiries in the case, but failed to discover any facts that would have justified the Secretary of State in advising the remission of the sentence. Another man, however, surrendered and confessed to being concerned in the robbery; he was arraigned on that charge and pleaded guilty. The case was full of difficulty, and far too complicated to allow of my attempting any résumé of the facts within the limits of an Answer, but I may say that I entirely agree with my predecessor's decision to release Flynn from prison, and also with his well-considered opinion that the case was not one for recommending any grant of compensation from public funds.
§ MR. O'GRADYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the detective actually threatened Flynn when he gave evidence in another case?
§ MR. J. WARDIs there no evidence of bias and malice on the part of the detective, and under these circumstances should not Flynn be compensated?
§ MR. GLADSTONEHe got the benefit of the doubt. I do not think we can go beyond that.