§ Viscount WOLMERasked the Home Secretary how many persons have been released from prison during his tenure of office at his special order; and how many of these have subsequently been reconvicted?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe total number of persons to whom remission of imprisonment was granted between February, 1910, and the present date, a period of about eighteen months, was 395. The total for the year 1909 was 322, and the average for a period of eighteen months during the years 190V to 1909 was 432. It must be remembered that these figures include a large number of remissions granted on medical grounds and on other grounds in no way affecting the propriety of the conviction or sentence. I have no information as to the number reconvicted. Except in the case of persons convicted while on licence under the Penal Servitude Acts convictions are not reported to me.
§ Viscount WOLMERWill the right hon. Gentleman state whether he personally investigates the case of every convicted 670 prisoner, or on what system does he go in order to secure that all convicts have equal treatment at his hands?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI take full responsibility for the orders I make with regard to the exercise of the prerogative. No advice is tendered with respect to the exercise of the prerogative of which I am not cognisant.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that James William Davey, who has ten convictions against him for thefts, the last being in April, 1910, to three years' penal servitude and five years' detention for stealing, and who was released on 2nd June, 1911, by his order, was on the 8th instant committed for trial by the Isle of Wight county bench on a charge of breaking into a cottage at Arreton and stealing food and two watches; what were the grounds on which he granted Davey's release recently; and will he consider the desirability in future cases of consulting the magistrates or judges concerned before ordering prisoners to be released?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLYes, Sir. Davey was convicted in April, 1910, of stealing some cheese, some jam roll puddings and some cooked meat, and sentenced to eight years' penal servitude and preventive detention. Having regard to the character of the larceny and to the character of his previous convictions, I did not consider his case was one which merited so severe a punishment, nor was it one of those for which Parliament intended preventive detention to be given. I therefore authorised the convict's release on licence when he had served as for a sentence of eighteen months. The case is one which illustrates the necessity of restricting the operation of the Prevention of Crime Act to serious cases and to dangerous criminals—a view which I have repeatedly urged and which has, I believe, the approval of the House. Before reducing the sentence I consulted the Recorder by whom the sentence had been passed, and considered fully the reasons which he adduced. The fact that the prisoner was only twenty-six years old also rendered the penal detention devised for the class of hopeless or almost hopeless offenders unsuitable and inappropriate. By the revised rules which have now been issued governing prosecutions under the Prevention of Crime Act this case would have been automatically excluded.
§ Mr. MacNEILLIs there any legal or moral obligation upon the Home Secretary to consult the judges, and is it a fact that the judges were consulted in the Beck case with the worst results?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo; I said when the Home Office Vote was on that there is no obligation; but, as a matter of fact, for the convenience of administration, it is usually done.
§ Mr. R. HARCOURTDoes the right hon. Gentleman contemplate introducing any amending legislation?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI think the revised regulations, of which I dare say my hon. Friend has seen a copy, are quite sufficient.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLWould it not be better to propose legislation rather than leave all these matters in the hands of the Home Office?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLUnder the legislation there is power to issue instructions governing the application of the Act, and these instructions have been printed and are the general rule, and it is not a matter of specific or occasional intervention.
§ Mr. MacNEILLMay I ask further, as this is very important, whether, utterly apart from all legislation, the right hon. Gentleman exercises the recognised prerogative of the Crown, as a matter which is above legislation?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLYes.