POST OFFICE (DISMISSAL, TEIGNMOUTH). (Hansard, 12 March 1931)

§ Mr. BROCKWAY
I gave notice some days ago that I should at the earliest opportunity raise on the Adjournment the case of Mr. F. W. Stanbury, of Teignmouth, who has been dismissed from the postal service. I should like to express my apologies to the representative of the Post Office that I have been unable to raise the question before. I make no apology for raising it, because I am sure the House is anxious that the rights of individuals should be regarded, and also because it raises principles in connection with the Post Office which I believe to be important. Mr. Stanbury was employed in the Post Office at Teignmouth for 30 years. He was a man of public activity, a justice of the peace, a member of the education committee of the secondary school, a member of the National Savings Committee and the committee of the local British Legion and was engaged in much other public work. I have very high tributes to his character from his fellow justices of the peace, from members of the education committee, from officers of the Territorials, in which he served before, during and after the War, and from ministers of religion. I am aware that, even when men have such testimonials, sometimes almost inexplicable lapses occur, but it is worth noting that he remains a justice of the peace despite the fact that the Lord Chancellor has made an investigation into the case. If there were a serious case against him it is doubtful whether the Lord Chancellor would have allowed him to remain upon the bench.
1542 The details of the case are as follows. Mr. Stanbury was suspended on 6th April, 1929, after inquiries by the investigating officers in connection with the loss of stamps and bank notes at the Teignmouth post office. Within 12 days his solicitor wrote to the Postmaster-General and asked that he should be prosecuted if there was any suspicion against him, in order that he might vindicate his character. The solicitor had no reply, but several weeks later Mr. Stanbury was dismissed for suspected dishonesty. I have the actual form in my hands, and the reason for dismissal is "suspected dishonesty." I am unable to give the date because there is no date upon the form, but it was several weeks after the original suspension.
The point to which I want to draw attention is this: the only opportunity Mr. Stanbury has had of meeting the charges against him was an invitation to make observations on a statement of the facts of the case sent by the Post Office. He gave names of witnesses who could corroborate his statements, and no inquiry was made even of those witnesses. I am not going to enter into his explanation of the incidents, because they are not the real issue. I am aware of them. They seem to me to he a reasonable explanation of why suspicion should fall upon him. The case I am putting is that no man ought to be dismissed from the public service after 30 years service of the character and standing of this man on a charge of suspected dishonesty, with no other opportunity to meet that charge than merely to make observations on a statement which had been provided by the Post Office.
Mr. Stanbury's solicitor has asked the Postmaster-General to nominate some person against whom he can institute proceedings for wrongful dismissal. The solicitor to the Postmaster-General has replied that such proceedings cannot be taken in the case of a dismissal since "every officer in the public service holds his appointment at pleasure, and can be dismissed without notice. No claim for wrongful dismissal can therefore arise." I suggest that even if that is a legal decision, can any principle of law or equity justify an employer dismissing his employé and giving as the ground "suspected dishonesty"? It seems to me to 1543 be utterly alien to the spirit of British justice. An employer may be entitled to dismiss an employé according to the terms of a contract, to dismiss him summarily for certain offences against the law, but he ought not to be entitled to dismiss an employé summarily merely on suspicion. That ought particularly to apply in the case of the public service.
There are three courses which I want to urge upon the Postmaster-General. If this case cannot be brought into a public Court to enable Mr. Stanbury to vindicate his character, it seems to me that he should be reinstated. The second possibility is that he should be given an opportunity to vindicate his character by a prosecution. The Post Office frequently prosecutes servants whom it dismisses on less serious charges than this. Mr. Stanbury asked the Post Office to prosecute him so that he may have an opportunity of vindicating his character in a Court of law, and bringing witnesses to corroborate the case which he put forward. Thirdly, if neither of those courses can be followed, at least there should be an inquiry in which Mr. Stanbury has an opportunity to appear himself, and to which he has an opportunity of bringing his witnesses. When I put this question in the House the answer was that three Ministers had carefully investigated the case, and that they had come to the conclusion that it could not be reopened. With all respect to the Ministers, they may be as wise as possible for human beings to be, and tempered with an unexampled spirit of mercy. That does not meet the plain right of this man, who has been dismissed from the public service on the grounds of "suspected dishonesty," to vindicate his name in the public eye by having an opportunity to meet the charges which have been made against him, and bringing before people who have the opportunity to judge, witnesses who can corroborate his statement.

§ The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant)
The case to which my hon. Friend refers has been given very great consideration. The original decision in Mr. Stanbury's case was come to by my predecessor in 1929, and the case has since been reviewed by my hon. Friend the late Postmaster- 1544 General and myself on several occasions. I think I can safely say that each Minister in turn who examined the case has been perfectly satisfied that the action taken by the Post Office was fully justified by the facts. As the case has been given such prominence, it would be well for me to inform the House of the charges against Mr. Stanbury. Mr. Stanbury was an officer who was dismissed. He had come under suspicion in connection with a number of losses from a Teignmouth office and arrangements were made in accordance with the ordinary practice of the Post Office, to test his honesty. A test letter was made up on 5th April, 1929, containing three £1 currency notes, and a marked unused three-halfpenny stamp. This letter was posted at such a time as to ensure that it would be handled by Mr. Stanbury in a Teignmouth sorting office, and included by him and properly dealt with, in a despatch to Exeter. The letter was not included in the despatch, and Mr. Stanbury was therefore interrogated by an officer of the Post Office investigation branch. The marked three-halfpenny stamp was found in his pocket and he gave no satisfactory explanation of how it came into his possession.

§ Mr. BROCKWAY
Will the hon. Gentleman give the explanation that Mr. Stanbury made?

§ Mr. VIANT
The currency notes were not found upon his person, but he admitted that he had changed three £1 notes at the post office counter shortly after handling the letter. The counter clerk placed them at the back of some others in a clip. On inquiry it was found that the three notes enclosed in the letter were in the possession of a member of the public, who had obtained payment for a telegraph money order at the post office counter, shortly after Mr. Stanbury changed the three £1 notes.
No other Post Office servant could have handled the letter after it came into Mr. Stanbury's possession, and no other Post Office servant presented currency notes at the Teignmouth counter on the afternoon in question. Mr. Stanbury was suspended, and, strange to say, he paid a visit to the home of the lady counter clerk who was on duty on the afternoon of 5th April and from whom he received cash in lieu of the three £1 notes. He, 1545 realising the important part she had played in stating the hour at which he changed the notes, sought to influence her to change the hour of 2 p.m. to 2.30, hoping thereby to upset the sequence of events. This would have meant that she paid the money on the telegraph money order at 2 p.m. and changed his currency notes at 2.30 p.m. The counter clerk replied that the times she had stated were true, and she would not say what she knew to be untrue. Mr. Stanbury also asked her not to let the Post Office authorities know that he had paid her a visit.
These facts are of more significance when it is known that Mr. Stanbury is a local magistrate. I think that these facts, none of which are in dispute, place it beyond doubt that Mr. Stanbury was responsible for handling the letter and stealing its contents. It has been suggested that if Mr. Stanbury is not prosecuted, he should at least be given an opportunity of appearing before some tribunal to give him an opportunity of calling witnesses and vindicating his innocence. I am quite prepared to admit that in certain cases, where an element of doubt existed, it might be right to give a person, dismissed without prosecution, the opportunity of appearing before a tribunal, but I am satisfied on the evidence that this is not one of those cases. The facts are overwhelming against Mr. Stanbury. The facts which I have detailed to the House, none of which are in dispute, constitute, to my mind, a perfectly clear case against Mr. Stanbury, and the statements of other persons, in his own statement, either have reference to his general character or to certain minor aspects of the case which have no bearing on the main question.
As I have already stated, the case has received the most careful personal consideration of no fewer than three Ministers. In addition to that, it has been dealt with by the expert investigating branch of the Post Office, of whose fairness and impartiality, after considerable experience, I have formed a very high opinion; that the case has been reviewed by various senior administrative officials at headquarters. I do not feel, therefore, that there is any prima facie ground for remitting the matter to an independent court of inquiry. As regards 1546 Mr. Stanbury's general character, to which my hon. Friend referred at some length, I can only say that it is not unknown for a man who has performed most praiseworthy public services to be found wanting in matters of personal honesty. Regrettable as it is, I feel that this case must be included in that category. Those are the broad outlines of the case, and I have nothing further to add, other than to say that the Post Office, like every other Government Department, always reserves the right to prosecute or not. In the circumstances I am persuaded that my hon. Friend has rendered no good service in again bringing this question before the general public, and I hope that he will see the wisdom of allowing the matter to drop. There is no alternative to the course that had been taken by the Post Office. The evidence is overwhelming, and I have nothing further to say.

§ Mr. BROCKWAY
I very carefully refrained from entering into the explanation which Mr. Stanbury gave. The only thing I ask is that he should be prosecuted and should have a chance of vindicating himself with his own witnesses. I want to know why the Post Office is not prepared to charge him, so that he may publicly vindicate himself and bring his witnesses to vindicate him.

§ Mr. VIANT
There are many cases in which the Post Office might proceed to prosecute, but there are various grounds which cause the Department to refrain from taking that course. In many instances there are compassionate grounds for not prosecuting, and to my own knowledge the Department has been persuaded to take that course.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I could understand myself coming to the hon. Gentleman and making an appeal to him on some subsequent occasion on compassionate grounds not to proceed with a prosecution, but what we are doing to-night is asking him on compassionate grounds to proceed with a prosecution. This man is a man who has been of some public standing in the neighbourhood in which he has worked. He believes that in a court of law, where his case would be judged as a criminal case, and not as it is judged in the Post Office, he could vindicate himself. There are other 1547 things involved. There is the question of discipline, and there is the question of maintaining authority. There is the whole question of the methods by which the superior officials in the Post Office get their evidence against a defaulting employé. I have had once or twice complaints about the way in which the investigating department of the Post Office deals with a man whom they suspect. I have heard accusations that it approaches very close to the "third degree." Here is a man of standing and good reputation. The idea of going into a police court must be particu- 1548 larly abhorrent to him, more abhorrent than it would be to myself or my hon. Friend, and yet he comes forward and he believes that by going into a court of law he can prove his innocence. I ask, what possible ground is there in objecting to this man being brought before the local police court and charged with theft, and allowed to make what defence he possibly can?