HC Deb 06 March 1917 vol 91 cc204-5
31. Sir H. CRAIK

asked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of a man named Beverley, who was convicted at Aberdeen of resetting provisions stolen from a military hospital, and was fined on summary procedure £25; and whether he will consider the advisability in such cases of proceeding by indictment before a higher Court, so that a punishment adequate to such a crime could be inflicted?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. A. Clyde)

I have caused inquiry to be made. This man was tried summarily for resetting some bags of sugar and meal of the value of £14 17s. 11d. He was convicted and fined £25. I am not disposed' to accept the suggestion that the penalty competent on summary conviction was inadequate. The conviction involved very serious consequences to the accused, apart from the penalty imposed. The question whether procedure on indictment, or on summary complaint, is advisable in any particular case is always considered, and was considered in this case.

Sir H. CRAIK

Does the right hon. Gentleman think a £25 fine was an adequate punishment for a man receiving from a thief provisions stolen from a hospital and resetting them?

Mr. CLYDE

Having given very careful consideration to all the circumstances of the case as brought out in evidence, my answer is in the affirmative.