33. Mr. POINTERasked if the Home Secretary's attention has been called to the case of John Bowler, who was recently convicted at Sheffield and sentenced to four months' hard labour for stealing 3d. from the tramway department of the Sheffield Corporation; and whether, in view of the previous good conduct of prisoner and the smallness of the amount stolen, he can recommend a reduction of the sentence?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have made inquiry, and find that the prisoner was convicted of embezzlement on trial by jury. Three separate charges were proved of appropriating tram fares, and I see no reason for recommending any interference with the sentence passed on him. It is open to the prisoner to apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a reduction of sentence.
Mr. POINTERWill the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the prisoner was convicted on the unsupported evidence of two young policemen who were on probation, and that the total amount of the embezzlement was only 3d.; and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that four months' hard labour is an atrocious sentence?
§ Mr. McKENNAAs to the first part of the question, that constitutes a material fact to bring before the Court of Appeal. As regards the second part, it is true that the amount was 3d., but it is obvious that as each case only amounted to one penny, and it was not necessary to go beyond the three cases, the mere fact that the amount was only 3d. does not enter into the merits of the case.
Mr. POINTERDoes the right hon. Gentleman think that if it had been the case of a rich man instead of a poor one he would have got four months' hard labour?
§ Mr. McKENNAOh, yes; I am sure that if it had been a rich man who had embezzled his employer's money it is quite certain that he would have been similarly sentenced.