§ 2. Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances surrounding the arrest and subsequent conviction of Mr. William Jones, 3, Wagstaffe Buildings, Sumner Street, Southwark; whether he is aware that Police-constable 478, M. Division, Charles Hutchings, who declined to give evidence in support of the officers who effected the arrest, but who was not called upon to give evidence either for or against the prisoner, has been fined, reprimanded, and transferred as the result of disciplinary proceedings taken against him; that the police-constable has resigned rather than submit to the alleged unjust treatment; and whether, in view of the effect of police evidence upon which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced, he will consider the establishment of a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to inquire fully into this matter, on the ground that it is one of definite and urgent public importance?
§ 3. Mr. HADEN GUESTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that since the arrest of William Jones in Sumner Street, Southwark, on 8th May, for an alleged offence under the Emergency Powers Regulations, and for which, on police evidence, he was found guilty and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, Police-constable Charles Hutchings has resigned from the Metropolitan Police rather than submit to disciplinary action taken against him for matters arising out of his protest against the manner of the arrest of, and the evidence given against, Jones; and whether, in view of the issues raised in respect of both the constable and the convicted man, and in order that there shall be no question of a miscarriage of justice in either case, he will authorise the whole matter to be inquired into by a tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI have made inquiry and find that the ex-constable was at the Court to give evidence on a minor point, but his evidence was not required. He was not in a position to see the act in respect of which Jones was arrested, and there was no question of his giving evidence with regard thereto. The offence in respect of which disciplinary action was taken against him was the use of obscene and insulting language to another member of the force. The whole case was fully investigated in accordance with the disciplinary procedure of the Metropolitan Police, and I can find nothing to suggest the need for any further investigation as regards either the case of the prisoner or that of the ex-constable.
§ Mr. HAYESIn view of the fact that this police officer was present on the occasion, but was not shown on the charge sheet, and as his evidence was not brought to the notice of the magistrate does the right hon. Gentleman think that the magistrate would, in fact, have sentenced the prisoner to three months, if he had had the evidence of this constable?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not understand the question. It is not a question of whether the constable was a witness for prosecution or not. The police did not want a, witness for the prosecution except on a particular point, and the constable was not called on behalf of the defendant nor did the defendant ask to have him called.
§ Mr. HAYESAs this police officer was the principal officer in the case and was on duty in the thoroughfare when the man was arrested, should not his evidence, whether for or against the prisoner, have been brought to the notice of the magistrate?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not think he was the principal officer at all and, as I understand, he was not in a position to see the act for which the man was arrested. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that he is mixing up two. One question is whether the man was rightly convicted or not, and I would point out there can be an appeal from the decision. The other question is whether the constable was properly disciplined for using this language to another member of the force, and I am bound to say I think he was.
§ Mr. HAYESWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether the officers who made the complaint against this constable were in fact, all giving evidence before the magistrate, and, if so, why were they not shown on the charge sheet?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI must have notice of that question. I cannot say definitely whether they were shown on the charge sheet or not.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI must ask for notice of that question also. I cannot carry all the details of every case in my head.
Mr. H. GUESTIs it not the fact that this man was actually released, after representations had been made by me to the right hon. Gentleman and after he had served only five weeks of the sentence and does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the matter might be looked into further?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNow that the hon. Member reminds me of the fact, I find that is so. I have been rather confused as between the two hon. Gentlemen who have put these questions. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. H. Guest) did come to me, and I did look into the case personally, and I did release the man. That shows that I took the case very fully into my own personal consideration, because I do not release prisoners without careful consideration. In doing that, I also considered the case of the police constable raised by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), and went fully into it, and I am convinced that justice has been done.
§ Mr. HAYESIs there not a similarity between this case and the case of Major Shepperd and the famous case of Stinie Morrison, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman set up a tribunal in this case as has been done in similar cases?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI have told the House that I went into this matter very fully. If the hon. Member has any further information which he likes to put before me to convince that there should be a further inquiry, I will consider it. At present I have released one man, and I do not think there is any need for any further inquiry in regard to the other.