§ Mr. MULDOONasked how many children have been sentenced to be whipped by courts of summary jurisdiction in the Hayward's Heath district during the last five years; how many have been sent to reformatories or industrial schools; and what were the offences charged against the children so punished?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe Secretary of State has not got this information. He will inquire whether it can be obtained.
§ Mr. DEVLINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the nature And character of the evidence given before the Hayward's Heath bench upon which the boy Bulbeck was convicted; whether unsworn testimony was accepted; and whether he proposes to take any further steps in the matter?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe Secretary of State believes it is the case that after the sworn evidence which proved the offence had been taken, and before sentence was passed, a police superintendent told the justices what was known of the boy. This course is usual, not only in courts of summary jurisdiction but also at assizes and quarter sessions, and is normally pursued in order to enable the court to decide what is the most suitable method of dealing with the offender.
§ Mr. DEVLINMay I ask whether, in view of the fact that the Home Secretary disapproved of the decision of the magistrates he will take some steps to deal with this unsworn testimony?
§ Mr. MASTERMANWhat the hon. Gentleman calls unsworn testimony has to be taken in the case of the Children Act in order that the magistrates may decide tow best to deal with a child who is under a possible sentence.
§ Mr. DEVLINWas it because of unsworn testimony that the imprisonment was given to this boy, which the Home Secretary has removed?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI do not know, but there are many cases in which this testimony considerably helps the juvenile offenders who are concerned.
§ Mr. LARDNERIs it the fact that where a person is charged in a court of summary jurisdiction, and there is a bad record, there is a legal means of proving his record, and that any other means of proving by statements of the police can be excluded?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI believe that is so.
§ Mr. MULDOONasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been directed to a charge of petty larceny preferred against Charles Bulbeck, a boy in his thirteenth year, before the Hayward's Heath bench on 11th April, 1910, upon which the accused was convicted and sentenced, among other penalties, to six strokes of a birch rod; and whether, having regard to the limitations upon the power of inflicting punishment of whipping imposed by the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, he intends to take any steps to prevent such punishments in similar cases?
§ Mr MASTERMANThe order for birching appears to have been strictly in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, as amended by the Children Act, 1908. Any prohibition of such punishment would require an alteration of the law.
§ Mr. MULDOONIs it illegal under the Summary Jurisdiction Act to punish any child over twelve years, and was not the child in this case proved to be in his thirteenth year?
§ Mr. MASTERMANUnder the Children Act the definition of a child was extended to fourteen years, and six instead of twelve strokes are allowed.