§ 18. Mr. GROVES
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that William Church, of 80, Windmill Lane, Stratford, E.15, a painter and decorator by trade, was visited in December, 1933, by detectives at 8 a.m. and put up for identification on two separate occasions, and then charged with falsely uttering goods for sale, but was acquitted; whether he is aware that the defence of this innocent man cost £20; and, as no compensation has been allowed him, will he consider the case and grant compensation to cover the man's expenses?
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
I have made inquiries about this case, which had not 2052 previously come to my notice, and am informed that Church was arrested in December last as answering the description of a man wanted for larceny by means of a trick. He was identified by two persons who had complained of being defrauded and was committed for trial on two charges but was acquitted at the County of London Sessions. I can find nothing in the circumstances of his arrest and committal for trial which would justify any payment to him from public funds.
§ Mr. GROVES
Is the Home Secretary riot aware that the verdict was that this man was innocent? Therefore, the identification parade cannot have been correct. As the man has been wrongfully arrested and put to expense, surely his case should be considered? Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department informed him that on 24th June this man was again arrested and put up for identification but not identified, and therefore will he see that the police now leave the man alone?
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
I have looked into the matter, as far as I have been able, and I have no reason to suppose that the police acted other than properly. I am not aware of the ground on which the court came to its conclusion, and I have said that as far as the police are concerned I have no reason to suppose that they acted improperly.