§ 22. Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, during 1934, 10,172 prosecutions were initiated against persons for driving recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner dangerous, and that of these charges 4,936, or about 48½ per cent., were withdrawn or dismissed; and whether he will make inquiries as to whether this high proportion of withdrawals and dismissals was due to undue zeal on the part of the police or undue leniency on the part of the magistrates?
§ Sir J. SIMONI am aware of the figures to which my hon. Friend refers, but I do not think that they are to be explained in either of the ways he suggests. Where a person is charged with dangerous driving, it is not uncommon to prefer an alternative charge such as careless driving, and I have little doubt that in many cases the withdrawal or dismissal of the more serious charge was followed by conviction of the lesser offence.
§ 23. Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in the return of offences relating to motor vehicles, it is stated that 113,817 offences were dealt with by written warning from the police; and if he will state under what statutory authority these warnings were given, and also by whose statutory authority an alleged offence which has been before no court of justice is described as an offence?
§ Sir J. SIMONYes, Sir. I am aware that during 1934 out of a total of 433,060 cases relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, 113,817 were dealt with by written warning from the police. The practice of dealing with alleged offences of a minor character by warning, instead of by prosecution, is of long standing and is based on the view that in the case of minor infractions of the law it is possible to maintain due observance of the law without subjecting members of the public to police court proceedings in all cases, and at the same time to reduce the 534 burden on both magistrates and the police. I am not aware of any express statutory authority for this practice, but it has been reviewed by the High Court and no exception was taken to it.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases the warning concludes with the words: "This offence will be taken into account the next time you do anything"; and are they entitled to assume that an offence has been committed before it has been proved in a court of justice?
§ Sir J. SIMONNo, Sir, most certainly not, and nobody can be regarded as having been guilty of an offence until he has been tried for it, and, on the evidence, convicted of it. At the same time, a warning may be given which at least may be borne in mind by the person receiving the warning, and the fact that he had been warned might, I suppose, be a relevant circumstance in considering punishment, if afterwards he was convicted of a subsequent offence.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSDo I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that a magistrate can be informed after a decision not to convict that a man has been warned, and that that is taken into account when no offence has been proved?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis must not develop into a legal discussion.