PRISONER, BARLINNIE GAOL, GLASGOW. (Hansard, 16 December 1937)

§ Mr. McGovern
I wish to raise a question of which I gave notice to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The question relates to an assault made by warders upon a prisoner in Barlinnie Prison. This man had been rather ill on 10th September, on account of his food not having agreed with him. He went back to his cell and, in a fit of depression, smashed what little furnishings there were in the cell. The warders then came to the cell and beat him badly—beat him unconscious. Then he was dragged back to his cell, stripped again of all his clothes and beaten again by the warders. Then, within an hour, the man was removed to an asylum and certified as insane. Instead of being put in an ordinary observation ward, he was committed to the asylum as a man who was completely insane. The doctor's report says that the man on admission to the asylum suffered from two fresh gashes in his skull, bruising on both shoulders, swelling on the right shoulder and considerable discoloration on the left, bruising on the right thigh and a leg badly swollen and discoloured. I saw the man in the institution, and his body, from head down to his ankles, was a mass of bruises, black and blue, and at that period already turning yellow.
The doctor informed me that the man's body became much more discoloured on the day following his admission. I have asked the Secretary of State to grant an inquiry, but, as the result of a question I put in the House in regard to it, I find that he refuses an inquiry and puts forward the official point of view supplied by the prison authorities. In my estimation the Secretary of State is not entitled to take completely the official answers 1484 given by those who are themselves responsible. He should at least hear completely the side of the man and those who are prepared to give evidence on his behalf.
I have a letter here from a man who was in prison at Barlinnie at the time, serving a 12 months' sentence, in which he tells me of Healy's injuries. He is willing to give evidence, and 15 other men also are willing to give evidence, of the brutal assault on this man. My case is that when he was removed after being assaulted, the doctor who examined him could not tell that the man was insane. He was only acting on information given by the warders. Dr. Dryden, the superintendent of the asylum, says that in the 3½ months that the man has been in the asylum he has shown no sign of insanity. This is a case of the brutal treatment of a prisoner, and we are entitled to expect that when any man passes into the hands of the law his friends shall be able to feel security while he is in prison, and that the Secretary of State, as the custodian of these individuals, will see that they get a square deal, and not a raw deal. I ask him to grant this inquiry. I would remind him that two weeks before this assault took place, and before I raised the question, the Home Secretary had a similar case to deal with, where two men were badly beaten in a prison in England. The Home Secretary granted an inquiry immediately, and, on the evidence supplied to him, warders were dismissed. I do not ask the Secretary of State to accept the statements of the man and the 15 prisoners. I ask him only to grant an inquiry into the case. If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to be afraid of. I say myself, on my own evidence, that the condition of that man's body was revolting to me when I saw it, and my only regret is that I did not take a picture of it. The doctors are agreed that he never came by those injuries through any violence of his own. He is a small man of light weight, only five feet two inches high. The Secretary of State's information is that four warders assaulted him; my information is that six warders assaulted him. All these facts could be brought out and I ask the Secretary of State to do the big thing in this case, to show that he is concerned for the welfare of these men and to grant an impartial inquiry to allay the suspicions and fears 1485 which are being aroused, in and around Glasgow.

§ Mr. Elliot
The case raised by the hon. Member is the kind of case in which the House always takes the deepest interest and in which I, as Secretary of State for Scotland, responsible for prison administration, must also take the deepest interest. Let me, first, in the short time available, point out that this was not a case of a number of warders coming into a cell and "beating up" the man. The hon. Member has stated that the man began by going into a fit of violent excitement, to put it no higher, and smashing everything in the cell. He had smashed all the panes of glass, and there was no knowing how much farther he would go. Suppose the warders had stayed outside the cell, and the man, after continuing in a state of maniacal excitement for some time, had cut his throat. The hon. Member would have been the first to accuse us of careless behaviour. It is all very well for the hon. Member to laugh; it is no laughing matter.

§ Mr. Leonard
I was not laughing. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that four men could not remove a prisoner without this sort of thing?

§ Mr. Elliot
I will come to that in a minute. It is unfair to laugh.

§ Mr. Leonard
I did not laugh.

§ Mr. Elliot
And it is unfair to interrupt in the short time available for me to reply. We are agreed that the prisoner was in a state of maniacal excitement in his cell, that he was breaking up the furniture, that he had broken glass, and that it was necessary for the warders to enter his cell. All the other convicts were in their cells, so there is no direct testimony as to what happened.

§ Mr. McGovern
How do you know?

§ Mr. Elliot
The hon. Member does not deny that the prisoners were outside.

§ Mr. McGovern
I said that 15 prisoners have offered to give evidence.

§ Mr. Elliot
But the hon. Member did not say that anyone was in a position to give evidence.

§ Mr. McGovern
I said this man was looking through his spy-hole.

§ Mr. Elliot
On this we are asked to hold an inquiry. He must be aware that under those conditions, with the man inside, according to his own story at the far end of his cell, and with people in the doorway, it would be quite impossible for him to see anything of the kind. [Interruption.] The hon. Member must be aware of that.

§ Mr. McGovern
I should not like you to defend a prisoner.

§ Mr. Elliot
The hon. Member has asked me to examine this case.

§ Mr. McGovern
Certainly.

§ Mr. Elliot
In the short time left for me to reply, the hon. Member must allow me to do my best to put the case. What was the next thing? Admittedly, the prisoner took up a heavy piece of crockery and struck the warder on the head with it. That is not denied by anybody.

§ Mr. McGovern
It is.

§ Mr. Elliot
Nobody denies, at any rate, that the warder was injured. The hon. Member did not deny these things previously, and it is quite unfair for him to deny them now. The hon. Member has not brought forward evidence that any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry. He says that admittedly there was a struggle, and this struggle was in the cell, in which a great deal of damage had been done by the prisoner. After that, the prisoner was taken from his cell, and, as I explained to the House on a previous occasion, taken down to another cell, where he was searched and stripped to avoid his having any broken glass in his possession. He was thereafter transferred to the asylum. I have had reports recently, the last of which was from a Deputy Commissioner of the General Board of Control on the 9th instant. He says: From all the evidence at my disposal, I am of opinion the patient is still convalescent from maniacal excitement amounting to certifiable insanity. Surely, that disposes of the statement made by the hon. Member. [Interruption.] I have also a report from the doctor at the asylum which I do not wish—