§ 76. Sir J. D. REESasked the Secertary of State for the Home Department whether the right of re-trial in cases of persons found guilty by the magistrates having jurisdiction will be made of general application?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe right to a fresh hearing of a case dealt with summarily depends on Statute. Section 19 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, gives an appeal in all cases under any past or future Act where imprisonment is imposed without option of a fine; and for many offences 1688 punishable only by fine (for example, being drunk and disorderly) an appeal is given by the Act. I do not at present contemplate any Amendment of the Statutes on the subject.
§ Sir J. D. REESThe right hon. Gentleman speaks of an appeal: this was not an appeal to him, was it? No appeal was made to him?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Gentleman does not refer to any particular case.
§ Sir J. D. REESNo, but may I not ask if the right hon. Gentleman has not heard a very interesting case of a gentleman with a weak stomach and strong friends?
§ Mr. McKENNAI do not know to what case the hon. Member refers.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGMay I ask whether the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman recently instituted to revise a sentence was held in circumstances in which the president of the inquiry was able to examine the witnesses on oath or not; and was the advice given to His Majesty by the right hon. Gentleman to revise the decision of the magistrates, the result of an inquiry not held on oath, as against the decision of the magistrates on oath?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes, the hon. Member is perfectly accurate. The consideration of the case by Mr. Chester Jones—I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to the case of engine-driver Knox—was conducted without putting the witnesses upon oath. That would be the usual procedure in cases of that kind.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWould it not be desirable to extend the facilities for appeal, in view of the fact that the punishment inflicted is not always the full punishment inflicted on the guilty person, who may also lose his employment?
§ Mr. McKENNAIt was for that reason, that the punishment inflicted by the Court was increased by loss of employment after the date of the right of appeal had expired, that I instituted the inquiry in this case; a proceeding which I and my predecessors have taken in other cases.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEIs it not the case that the disrating of Knox was not an additional punishment, but was rather a protection to the public?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, Sir, it was to Knox an additional punishment—a punishment which occurred only after the time in which he could appeal had expired.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the punishment in this case amounted to 7s. per week to Knox for life?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes, Sir, that was the reason. In the original case Knox was only fined 5s., which, being a very small sum, he paid, rather than go to the trouble of appeal. But when he found that the loss to himself involved, not only the payment of the 5s. fine, but the loss of 7s. per week, he asked for the interference of the Home Secretary on the ground that, whilst the opportunity of appeal was open to him, ho had no knowledge that he would have this further loss.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWould it not be possible in all cases to extend the right of appeal where further punishment is inflicted upon men?
§ Mr. McKENNAThese cases are not frequent, and I think this case has been dealt with quite satisfactorily.