HC Deb 03 June 1924 vol 174 cc1076-8
Dr. SPERO

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Children Act, 1908, in respect of punishments for second or subsequent convictions. No doubt many hon. Members are aware of the inadequate sentences recently imposed upon callous brutes for inhuman cruelty to children. As an example I will quote two cases. In March, 1924, a young mother was convicted for cruelty to her three-year-old son. She admitted to the 'Court that in a fit of temper she placed the child on the top bar of a fire, causing a burn a quarter of an inch wide across the lower part of the baby's body. She was fined £5 and costs. In May, 1924, at Newton Abbot, a father, who had been convicted a year previously for ill-treating his son aged one and a half years, was prosecuted for ill-treating the same child, then two and a half years of age. The prosecution stated that the child was made to stand naked outside a tent for a quarter of an hour and the father hit him with a stick and burned him with a lighted cigarette. His body bore a mass of bruises. The man was fined £6 and given a month in which to pay. I make no comment on the justice of these sentences except to suggest the passing of the Bill. It seeks to add to Section 12B of the Children Act the following words: In the case of a second or subsequent conviction there shall be no option of a fine. The other two Clauses are the usual Clauses. I believe if the Bill was placed upon the Statute Book it would greatly reduce the number of cruelty cases, because a person who unmercifully tortures a child almost within an inch of its life is nothing more or less than the lowest type of coward conceivable, and it is an established fact that the coward only fears physical punishment. Therefore the coward's fear is the antidote for cowardice. This Bill will provide that fear by giving these monsters the physical punishment of imprisonment.

Mr. FOOT

rose—

Mr. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Bill?

Mr. FOOT

I do. I should be the last to express any difference from the views expressed by my hon. Friend as to the necessity of punishing any ill-treatment of children. But I submit that the Bill is not conceived to deal with that difficulty. He gave two cases which he desired to meet. One was of a young mother who had caused cruelty to her child, where a nominal fine was imposed, and the other was of a man at Newton Abbot who was brought before a magistrate, and for a second offence only a fine was imposed. But my hon. Friend did not point out that already there is provision under the existing Act, which, indeed, he seeks to amend, which in both those cases enabled the magistrates, if they had thought fit, to impose not merely a fine, but imprisonment. Under the Act of 1908, which received very considerable attention from the House, it would have been open to proceed against either of these persons by indictment, in which case a punishment could have been inflicted of two years' imprisonment for either offence. On indictment the person could have been punished with a fine of £100, or, in default of payment of such fine, or in addition thereto, imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years. Further, if they had proceeded before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction only, it was then open to the magistrate, in either case, to impose a fine of £25 or imprisonment of six months, or both together. The complaint we have is, I think, that the magistrates in many cases do not use the powers they have. I think those who passed the Act of 1908 provided substantial penalties, and those penalties ought to be brought more frequently into operation to check this cruelty. The mischief that arises throughout the country in that very often merely nominal punishment is given where there are offences against the person as against the heavier penalties that are given where there are offences against property, and, while appreciating the desire of the hon. Member, I submit that his Bill is misconceived for its purpose. If magistrates will not use the powers which they have now it is a very poor remedy simply to increase the penalties, which even then they need not put into operation. The danger will be that if for a second offence nothing but imprisonment can be imposed, then in cases upon the border line, or where a conviction might be secured, it is quite likely that the prosecuting authorities will think twice before bringing the case into Court; and perhaps the magistrates will be influenced by the fact that they can only impose imprisonment and will acquit the person charged altogether. This house ought to give its attention to bringing public opinion to bear to see that the penalties that do exist in our law are imposed more generally than they are, and, further, to quickening public opinion so that punishment is given more frequently to those guilty of crimes of cruelty than those who have offended against the laws of property. I certainly wish to help the hon. Member as far as I can in checking cruelty, but I submit that the Bill is misconceived, that it will not achieve its purpose, and that it will deflect public opinion from the course which it ought to take in pressing for the heavier penalties which the law already provides.

Question put,

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Children Act, nos. in respect of punishments for second or subsequent convictions."
Mr. SPEAKER

stated that he thought that the "Noes" lied it. On decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed. He, accordingly, called upon the Members who challenged his decision to rise in their places, and he declared that the "Noes" had it.