§ 64. Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Home Secretary with reference to the requirement of the Lunacy Act, 1890, Section 8, Sub-section (2), that where a lunatic who has not been personally seen by the judicial authority has been received as a private patient by the manager of an institution for lunatics, or by a person taking charge of him as a single patient, such manager or person 1347 shall, within twenty-four hours after reception, give the patient a notice in writing of his right to be taken before or visited by a judicial authority, if he can state how many cases have occurred in the five years last past of this direction of law not having been obeyed; whether there has been any instance of a prosecution for the misdemeanour having been instituted by or on behalf of the Lunacy Commissioners; and if he will state in what way the liberty of the subject is protected in the case of such incarceration where the above requirement has been ignored and the protection of judicial authority avoided?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe Lunacy Commissioners are unable to state definitely the number of cases in which notice in writing has not been given, but they believe them to be very few. Where any failure has occurred the person in default has been seriously warned, but there has been no case in which, in their opinion, a prosecution was called for. Where there is a failure to give the notice, the patient is protected by the report which has to be made to the Commissioners, and by the visits and inquiries which the Commissioners make.
§ 65. Sir J. JARDINEasked the Home Secretary, with reference to the requirement of the Lunacy Act, 1890, Section 8, Sub-section (2), and the statutable misdemeanour of disobedience thereto, whether there is any rule or practice whereby a Lunacy Commissioner, who may afterwards discover that the patient has not been informed of his right to be taken before or be visited by a judicial authority, can condone the disobedience; and on what law such condonation is based?
§ Mr. McKENNAThere is no such rule or practice. If any case comes to the knowledge of the Commissioners they will prosecute if they consider that the circumstances require them to take that course.
§ 66. Mr. HINDSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Police-constable Davies. 706 W Division, was transferred from Clapham station to the Croydon station on the 3rd day of February, 1913; if he is aware that only a few days previously the Commissioner of Police had upheld the constable's appeal against the transfer; if he is aware that the said constable submitted, through Superintendent West of the W Division, a second appeal 1348 reminding Sir E. R. Henry of his decision in the matter of only a few days previously; will he state whether the second appeal was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police; and whether he will grant an inquiry into Police-constable Davies's case and into the administrative control of the canteen funds at the Clapham and Croydon stations, respectively?
§ Mr. McKENNAPolice-constable Davies was punished for misconduct, and his transfer to another station was directed. He appealed to the Commissioner against the order of transfer, and the Commissioner, while upholding the transfer, varied the incidence of the cost thereof. A further representation was made by Police-constable Davies, but his request was not acceded to by the Commissioner. There is no sufficient ground for any further inquiry into this case, and I am advised by the Commissioner that there are no grounds for an inquiry into the control of the mess funds at Clapham and Croydon stations, which are administered by responsible committees.