§ Mr. PURCELL(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the matter of making 1857 adequate compensation to Mrs. Pace, the Fetter Hill widow, who has been under police surveillance since 10th January, subjected to severe examination by Scotland Yard officers and a protracted coroner's inquiry, arrested on a charge of murder, kept in prison for a lengthy period, and compelled to undergo all the anguish and terrors on the capital charge, and who has now been released, no case having been proved against her; whether he will institute a public inquiry into the position and powers of coroners; and whether, in the public interest—in view of the heavy expense involved in ensuring adequate legal defence—provision cannot be made to guarantee poor persons, particularly those implicated in charges involving life or death, the fullest and best legal and technical defence free from cost?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI have been asked to reply. I only received notice of this question at mid-day to-day. It raises three important matters: First, the question of compensation to Mrs. Pace; secondly, the proposal to hold a public inquiry into the position of coroners; and thirdly, a proposal to provide legal assistance for accused persons. With regard to the two last questions, I am not prepared to give any answer except that these matters will receive due consideration by the proper authorities. With regard to the question of compensation for Mrs. Pace, she has been acquitted by a jury after a very careful and admittedly fair trial. There has been no departure from the ordinary course of the administration of justice. In these circumstances, it is most undesirable, in the interests of justice generally, that any proposal for compensation in this case should be entertained.
§ Mr. PURCELLIs there really no sense of decency on the part of the Government? [Interruption.] I repeat, is there no sense of decency on the part of the Crown in connection with a case that has resulted in half this woman's home being destroyed by members of the public who are in a morbid sense out for sight-seeing? Is nothing to be done for a woman who in this case has been thrown into prison without an atom of evidence that she was in any sense responsible 1858 for the crime? Will the Government, or the Crown anyhow, look at the depositions and see whether the ease ought ever to have been proceeded with at all against this woman?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI will certainly look at the depositions, and, if the hon. Member had postponed his question, it would have given me an opportunity to look at the evidence and go into the case.
§ Mr. PURCELLI am sorry for that. I posted my question as early as I could on Saturday, and I am sorry that the learned Attorney-General did not receive it earlier.
§ Mr. MORRISMay I say that I have put down a question for to-morrow relating to the powers of coroners' juries and the amendment of the law? I do not want to put that question as a Supplementary Question now if I can put it in the ordinary way to-morrow. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether I should put my question in the form of a Supplementary Question now, or whether I should put it to-morrow?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI should like to see the hon. Member's question before it appears on the Paper.
§ Mr. MORRISI have put it down.
§ Mr. W. THORNEIs it not the case that, if the coroner had accepted the verdict of the jury in the first instance, this woman would have been saved from suffering this inhuman torture?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALIt is very desirable that reticence should be observed on the subject of a trial in which the accused person has been fully acquitted. The hon. Member will realise that questions and answers might very likely throw doubt, not only in this case but in other cases, upon the nature of the complete acquittal.
§ Mr. HAYESWhen the Attorney-General examines the depositions, will he bear in mind that an ex gratia payment of £500 was made to an ex-officer of His Majesty's Forces, and that obviously a question of justice does arise where a poor woman has been charged with and acquitted of the horrible crime of murder?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALAs I have said, it is very undesirable to enter into discussions of a case in which the person in question has been fully acquitted of a charge. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the case which he mentions, he will find that that was a case in which there had been a conviction.
§ Captain STREATFEILDIs the Attorney-General aware that, whatever a coroner's jury may or may not say in a case of this description, there is no getting away from the amount of degradation and suffering that is entailed, even upon persons who are subsequently acquitted, and may I ask him to consider carefully whether cases in which this intense suffering is undergone by people accused erroneously on the capital charge should not be gone into by the Government with a view to giving compensation?
§ Mr. MORRISIn view of the fact that the verdict of the coroner's jury remains on the records of the coroner's court, will the Attorney-General take steps to have that verdict quashed; and, further, does he propose to introduce an amendment of the law relating to coroners' juries, limiting the power of a jury to inquiry into the cause of death only, leaving the verdict to the magisterial courts and the assize courts?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONDid I understand the Attorney-General to say that the Government are proposing to institute an inquiry into the question of the coroner's inquisition; and, if so, will he bear in mind the fact that in Scotland there are no coroners or coroners' inquisitions, and the progress of justice is always safe and efficient?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI did not say that the Government are contemplating an inquiry into the question of coroners' inquisitions. What I said was that the question which has been submitted at very short notice will receive due consideration from the proper authorities, and everything will be borne in mind. With reference to the question whether I will consider quashing the verdict returned at the coroner's inquisition, I have no power to quash such a verdict. The proper proceedings in accordance with the usual administration 1860 of the law were taken as the result of the verdict returned by the coroner's jury and the committal by the magistrates of the accused person in question upon a particular charge. I respectfully suggest to the House and to hon. Members that it is undesirable to discuss the verdict of complete acquittal which this lady has received.
§ Mr. SHINWELLWith regard to the third part of the question, relating to legal assistance for prisoners, may I ask if that matter is now being considered by the Government; and, if so, when the Attorney-General will have an opportunity of presenting a statement to the House?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALThe Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Finlay has made a Report on the subject of assistance for accused persons who are not able to afford the costs of their own defence, and the Report of the Committee is under consideration.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAAre not costs sometimes allowed in particular circumstances to an accused person who has been acquitted, and, in view of the very protracted nature of this case, could not some such arrangement be made, quite apart from the question of compensation?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALThere are certain cases in which costs may be allowed. I have had no opportunity of considering the suggestion that costs might be allowed in this case, and I am not able to say whether it is a case in which the Court might make such an order.
§ Mr. MORRISQuite apart from the facts of this particular case, there are two verdicts on the record, namely, that of the coroner's jury finding the person concerned guilty of murder, and the verdict reversing that at the Assize Court. That reveals the illogical state of the law—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!."] Is it not desirable, therefore, to amend the law so as to limit the findings of a coroner's jury to the cause of death alone?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALWhether that is desirable or not, it is not, if I may respectfully say so, a proper subject 1861 of question and answer without due opportunity for considering these important matters.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEWill the Attorney-General consider the matter?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe notice has been so short that any further questions should be put on the Paper.