§ 75. Mr. PENRY WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will say what answer he has received to his recent letter to the Norman Cross bench of magistrates, with reference to the case of Fred. E. Rist, taxi-cab proprietor, of Middlesbrough, who was convicted at Norman Cross on the 22nd October last of an offence under the Motor Car Act, and fined; whether he intends to remit at least part of the fine imposed or take any further action in the matter; whether his letter of the 28th November 2297 to the clerk to the bench was published with his authority; whether he is aware that Rist was in prison five days; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to permit bail being accepted in such cases?
§ Mr. McKENNAMr. Rist was convicted of dangerous driving under Section 1 of the Motor Car Act, and the seriousness of the offence was aggravated by his nonappearance at Court. The justices appear to me to have acted properly in refusing to deal with the case ex parte, and as Mr. Rist did not appear, the issue of a warrant was in their discretion. The fine imposed seems lenient for such an offence, and I have no doubt the justices took into consideration the fact of Mr. Rist's detention. I do not propose to take further action with regard to the case. I was not aware that the letter sent to the clerk to the justices with regard to it was published, but the justices were of course at liberty to publish it. Mr. Rist was in custody five days. The police executing the warrant for his arrest had no power to release him on bail. I think it is desirable that the police should have power in proper cases to release on bail a prisoner arrested on a warrant; and although the subject is not free from difficulty, I will endeavour to include a provision on this subject in the Bill with regard to the administration of justice which I hope to introduce early next Session.