§ 38. Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Mr. Arnold Johnson Ross was not released on 29th March when it was discovered that he was innocent of the charge on which he had that day been sentenced at Bow Street to imprisonment for three months.
§ 42. Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the conviction of Arnold Johnson Ross at Bow Street Police Court on a charge of which he was subsequently found to be innocent; and what steps he has taken to compensate Mr. Ross.
§ Mr. EdeAs soon as information reached the court that a mistake had been made by the complainant, the magistrate substituted a remand warrant for the warrant of commitment to prison issued earlier in the afternoon. This warrant which was conditioned for bail was sent to Pentonville Prison by special messenger and in pursuance of it Mr. Ross was released on bail on the evening of 29th March. He appeared in court again on the following morning and, after the magistrate had heard the fresh evidence, he was discharged. I am satisfied that immediate steps were taken by everyone concerned to remedy this mistake as soon as it was discovered, and there are no grounds for paying compensation out of public funds in this case.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonIs my right hon. Friend aware that there was a monstrous injustice in this case and that in all the circumstances it would be regarded as not ungenerous on his part if he made some restitution to this unfortunate man?
§ Mr. EdeI agree that a most unfortunate mistake was made here. The complainant's father has given the man who was the defendant in the case more than double the two days' wages he lost.
§ Major Legge-BourkeIs the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied there is nothing 1181 he can do to prevent a repetition of this sort of thing, and if he is not satisfied what action does he propose to take?
§ Mr. EdeThe records of all appeal courts prove that there are mistakes made in lower courts. What I am satisfied about is that in this case, as soon as the mistake was discovered, every step was taken to ensure that the minimum of harm should result.
§ Mr. ErrollDid not Mr. Ross protest his innocence consistently throughout the proceedings?
§ Mr. ThomasIs it not a fact that there was not a shred of evidence to support the charge made by the complainant against this complete stranger?
§ Mr. EdeI do not think we can re-try the case here. There was a mistake made and the person who made the mistake at once frankly revealed it to the court. Perhaps in view of the interest of the House I might be allowed to read a short account of what happened:
Mr. Ross appeared at Bow Street at 2.15 p.m. on 29th March. The discovery of the wallet was reported to Bow Street at about 5.20 p.m. the same afternoon. A telephone message was sent immediately to Pentonville Prison where Mr. Ross had arrived at 4.50 p.m. Mr. Ross was kept in the officers' room in the reception wing until the remand warrant arrived at 7.35 p.m. when he was released on bail.I think that this demonstrates that as soon as the mistake was discovered every effort that could be made was made to ensure that the minimum of harm was done.
§ Earl WintertonIn view of the disturbing effect on the public mind of this case—that a man should be convicted on the evidence of one young witness—will the right hon. Gentleman consider circularising magistrates, stipendiary and voluntary, with a view to reviewing what are described—I do not think it is a technical term—as the Rules of Evidence? It is a very disturbing case indeed.
§ Mr. EdeI share the sense of disturbance which has been expressed. I do not think the magistrates themselves are responsible for reviewing the Rules of Evidence, but I hope that the publicity that has been given to this case, and the clear 1182 concern of all of us in the House this afternoon about the matter, will make an impression on magistrates who have to deal with this kind of case.