§ 27. Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the case of Alfred Smith, of Norwood, who was convicted on 30th March before the Walsall magistrates, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, of having asked for a bribe from manufacturers whose goods he had to pass in his capacity as inspector acting for the War Office, and who was fined £5 for this offence; and whether the Government are prepared to propose legislation which would impose a penalty more adequate for a crime so heinous and so fraught with danger to the security of the realm?
§ Mr. WALTER REA (Lord of the Treasury)The Attorney-General has asked me to give his reply. Where an offence against the Prevention of Corruption Act is tried by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the maximum penalty authorised by that Act is imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding four months, or a fine not exceeding £50, or both such imprisonment and such fine. Cases calling for more serious punishment are tried on indictment, in which case the maximum penalty on conviction is imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding £500, or to both such imprisonment and such fine. The existing law appears, therefore, to authorise an adequate penalty. The actual penalty inflicted in an individual case depends, of course, upon the discretion of the tribunal which tries the case.
§ Sir H. CRAIKWas it brought to the notice of the Attorney-General that an Amendment was moved by me to the Defence of the Realm Act for this special purpose, and that it was ruled out of order?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is impossible for the hon. Gentleman who replied to know the answer to that question.
§ Sir H. CRAIKMay I respectfully ask if we are to obtain no information at all because the Minister is unable to attend?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member can take the usual course of putting a question down, and the Attorney-General will answer him.