§ 55. Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in the case of Mr. G. G. W. Farquharson, of 196, Great Portland Street, W.1, particulars of whose case he has been given, the magistrate trying the case was not informed of the intention of the Customs and Excise Department to seize Mr. Farquharson's motorcar in addition to the fine imposed; to what extent this action 1379 is customary; and if he will give instructions in the future for the magistrate to be told of the intentions of the Customs and Excise Department, thereby avoiding the possibility of excessive punishment.
§ Sir S. CrippsThe section of the Spirits Act, 1880, under which Mr. Farquharson was prosecuted for unlawfully removing spirits, provides for the forfeiture of the vehicle used for removing them, and there is nothing unusual about its enforcement. There was no need for the prosecution to call the magistrate's attention to the forfeiture provisions, and the solicitor who defended Mr. Farquharson and may be presumed to have been familiar with the situation evidently took the same view. In the circumstances, I see no need to interfere with the discretion of the Department.
§ Sir W. WakefieldIs it not wrong that the Customs and Excise should have the power of perhaps doubling or trebling the fine imposed by a magistrate? Ought not the magistrate to have the sole power of deciding what punishment a man should or should not have?
§ Sir S. CrippsNo, Sir. Parliament decided in 1880 in the contrary direction.
§ Mr. HoggWould it not be more equitable if the magistrate, when he inflicted the penalty, had the knowledge whether or not the Department had decided to enforce that particular provision?
§ Sir S. CrippsNo. No doubt, he makes his decisions in the light of the Act of Parliament which gives that power.
§ Sir W. WakefieldIn view of the most unsatisfactory nature of this matter, I wish to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.