HC Deb 20 November 1928 vol 222 cc1531-4
31. Mr. DAY

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total cost and expenses in which the Government were involved in the Oscar Slater appeal?

35. Mr. MACLEAN

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total costs of the Government in the Oscar Slater appeal case; and if he has any information as to the total costs of Oscar Slater in the same action?

Sir J. GILMOUR

The total costs incurred by the Crown in respect of the Slater appeal amounted to£272 2s. 11d. I have no definite information as to the total costs incurred by the appellant.

Mr. DAY

Do these costs include the cost of the various American investigations?

Sir J. GILMOUR

As far as I know, the Crown did not hold any American investigation.

Mr. DAY

Is it not a fact that investigations went on in America for many years in connection with various witnesses in this case?

Mr. BUCHANAN

Does that sum include any payment either to the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General, who conducted the case for the Crown, other than that passed by this House?

Sir J. GILMOUR

With regard to the first supplementary question, if the hon. Member will put down a question on that subject I shall endeavour to answer him. As regards the second question, the Lord Advocate does not receive any fee.

32. Mr. DAY

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to state the precedents which influenced the Government's decision in arriving at the amount paid to Mr. Oscar Slater as an ex gratia payment for the wrongful imprisonment he endured for 18½ years; and whether, in taking into consideration these precedents, the amount of costs and expenses incurred by the persons concerned in establishing their innocence were taken into consideration?

33. Mr. MACLEAN

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the precedent on which he based the amount of the ex grotia payment to Oscar Slater: what was the period of imprisonment imposed; the amount of the compensation awarded; and whether the precedent was under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Office?

Sir J. GILMOUR

In determining the amount of the payment to Mr. Slater, regard was had to previous cases where it appeared that persons who had served a period of imprisonment should not have been convicted. The Scottish Office has a record of only two previous cases where payments were made by the Exchequer in respect of wrongful convictions in Scotland. In neither of these cases were the circumstances very comparable to the Slater case. Regard was therefore had to various English cases, including the cases of Brannaghan and Murphy, who in 1888 each received a free pardon and£800 after serving nine years; Beck, who in 1904 received a free pardon in respect of two convictions and£5,000 after serving about 5½ years; Edalji, who in 1907 received a free pardon but no compensation after serving about 3½ years; and Mrs. Gooding, whose two convictions were quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1921, and who received£250 after spending rather over eight months in prison. Consideration is given to all the circumstances of individual cases, including the possibility of expense having been incurred by the person concerned.

Mr. DAY

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in any of these cases the prisoner was almost executed—almost went to the gallows?

Mr. MACLEAN

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make any inquiry into the legal costs of the appellant in having his sentence quashed, so that the House may have some definite information as to the actual sum received by him as compensation? The House will then be in a position to compare that sum with the precedents quoted by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir J. GILMOUR

No, Sir. I see no reason to take that course. The compensation which was given was given to cover all the circumstances and was so accepted.

Mr. MACLEAN

How can the right hon. Gentleman intimate to this House that it was given after taking all the circumstances into consideration, when he admits that he does not know what were the legal costs of the appellant? Is it not an important point in the consideration of the amount of compensation to be determined? Compensation is surely not payment for expenses incurred?

Mr. SPEAKER

I understand that a Supplementary Estimate will shortly come before the House in Committee, and that would be the proper time at which to debate this subject.

Mr. MACLEAN

In order that the House may be in a position to judge the Supplementary Estimate and debate it with all the facts before them, is it not necessary that the costs of the appellant should be made known to the House?

Mr. SPEAKER

That is probably so, but I felt that the hon. Member in his Supplementary Question was going rather beyond that point.

Mr. WELLOCK

Arising out of the precedents mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, if they are to be taken into consideration, will he also consider the fact that£5,000 in 1904 is to be regarded as something like£8,000 to-day?

Mr. B. SMITH

In regard to the precedents quoted, can the right hon. Gentleman also say whether in any of these cases expenses had to be incurred on anything like the scale involved in the Slater case?

Sir J. GILMOUR

Of course, in judging of these matters, there is a certain element of knowledge in the Department of what the ordinary run of costs may be in particular cases. Naturally, all these things are taken into consideration, but this payment must not be taken as being divided into heads and sub-heads. It is a lump sum paid to cover all the circumstances.

Mr. DAY

rose—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member has had the facts for which he asked.