§ Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say for what reason George Baker, who was convicted at Uckfield, in Sussex, on 21st December, 1911, on a charge of poaching, but of whose innocence the Home Office were aware on 27th December, 1911, was kept in prison until 20th January, 1912; and whether he proposes to give any compensation to George Baker for wrongful detention?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that I was aware of this man's innocence in December. I did indeed receive a statement to the effect that another man had admitted that he had committed the offence of which Baker was convicted, but as the same man had already given evidence on oath to the contrary it was impossible for me to act on his statement until it had been tested by a prosecution. When it was reported to me on 19th January that this man and another had been convicted of the offence of which Baker had previously been convicted, I was justified in advising the remission of the remainder of his sentence. The case is not one in which I could recommend the payment of compensation from public funds.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYIs it not a fact that the magistrate who convicted Baker came up to London specially on the second day after the conviction, and informed the Home Office that he was satisfied Baker was not guilty?
§ Mr. McKENNAI am not aware of that. If the hon. Member will give me notice of the question I will certainly inquire.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe person who in the original charge gave evidence against Baker is now in prison. I do not suppose any further action will be taken against him.
§ Sir W. BYLESMay I ask on what ground the right hon. Gentleman refuses compensation to the man whom society has injured?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe rules as to compensation do not involve the giving of compensation to every person who is charged and subsequently acquitted. There was certainly strong evidence in the case.
§ Sir W. BYLESHe was sent to gaol.