§ 17. Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that it was the Governor of His Majesty's Detention Prison, Camp Hill, and not the Board of Visitors, who heard the original charge made by convict H. Smith in August, 1926, against an officer of using foul language, and that on this occasion Smith was refused permission to call witnesses; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSYes, Sir; and I have no fault to find with the action of the Governor, whose report has been before me. The be haviour of the convict Smith was not then in question. The charge against Smith was, as I have previously said, investigated by the 1399 Board of Visitors. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEWill the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Governor refused to allow Smith to call witnesses in defence of his case at that time?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI have answered questions on this case before, as the hon. Member knows. The accusation was by one of the convicts, a man named Smith, against an officer of using foul language. That accusation was heard by the Governor, and the Governor came to the conclusion that the whole accusation was a complete concoction, and directed that Smith should be charged before the Prison Commissioners.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEHow can it be right for the Governor to come to that conclusion when Smith offered to call witnesses and was prevented from doing to? Surely, in common fairness, he should have been allowed to call witnesses if he diseired.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSGases do break down sometimes on examination, and in this case the Governor came to the conclusion that Smith's ease broke down completely.