HC Deb 12 February 1948 vol 447 cc539-40
1. Mr. G. Lang

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent disorder in His Majesty's Prison, Dartmoor; and give details of the punishments inflicted on certain prisoners by the visiting justices who investigated charges arising out of the incidents.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)

As the answer is long and includes a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lang

In that information is there any statement whether these people whose actions no one wishes to condone, were represented before the visiting justices?

Mr. Ede

No, Sir. There is no statement to that effect. They were not represented.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say how many prisoners assisted the authorities in the recent disturbances? Are they not marked men? Are they being kept in Dartmoor or being transferred to other prisons?

Mr. Ede

I should require notice of those questions.

Mr. Medland

Will the statement contain information about the time which elapsed between the passing of the sentences by the visiting justices and their approval, or otherwise, by the Home Office?

Mr. Ede

No, Sir. It will not. The justices made certain recommendations which came to me and, on the information in front of me, I did not feel able to confirm those recommendations. Therefore, I asked the visiting justices to meet me. That led to some short delay.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

Can my right hon. Friend give any information as to any grievances which may have led to the disturbances, and can he say whether any steps have been taken to remove those grievances?

Mr. Ede

There was an allegation that the difficulties had relation to food. I have had that matter investigated. I am convinced that there was no substantial grievance.

Following is the answer:

At about 2.30 p.m. on 23rd December last, some 220 prisoners on parade at Dartmoor prison refused to move off to work. They were ordered back to their cells and about a third of the men obeyed, but the majority continued to demonstrate. Certain ringleaders were removed by the staff. There were some further incidents, including an attempt by some of the men to force the door to the kitchen, but the prison officers succeeded in getting the prisoners back to their cells, where they were locked up. Some furniture was smashed, but no one suffered personal injury. I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the firm action taken by the prison staff, under the control of the two chief officers, which prevented what might have been a much more serious incident. The Governor dealt with 83 prisoners on disciplinary charges: he cautioned or dismissed the charge against 53, and punished 30. Twenty-two were dealt with by the Board of Visitors on charges of mutiny, and have been punished as follow: In four cases, forfeiture of 360 days' remission; forfeiture of 360 days' "stage" (i.e., postponement of privileges); exclusion from associated work for 28 days; deprivation of mattress for 15 days; loss of earnings for 28 days; restriction of diet for 57 days; cellular confinement for 28 days. In fourteen cases, forfeiture of 270 days remission, and otherwise as in the four cases referred to above. In two cases, forfeiture of 135 days' remission; forfeiture of 180 days' "stage"; exclusion from associated work for 14 days; deprivation of mattress for eight days; loss of earnings for 14 days; restriction of diet for 29 days; cellular confinement for 14 days. In two cases, forfeiture of 90 days' remission; forfeiture of 90 days' "stage"; exclusion from associated work for 28 days; deprivation of mattress for 10 days; loss of earnings for 28 days; restriction of diet for 38 days; cellular confinement for 10 days.
Back to