§ 27. Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Randolph Clive Oakes, aged four years, Corndon Close, Birchen Coppice, Kiddermister, who lost four toes on one foot and will be crippled for life and who was found to be suffering from gangrene, rickets and scurvy as a result of being kept by his parents in a bare, un-heated room; whether he is aware that the Chairman of the Kidderminster magistrates stated that this is the worst case of child neglect ever to come before him; and whether, in view of the cruelty displayed in this case and many similar cases of child cruelty, His Majesty's Government will now consider strengthening the law and penalties for such offences.
§ Mr. EdeI am informed that on the application of the prosecution, the justices decided to deal with this case summarily and imposed the maximum term of imprisonment of six months together with a fine of £10. Had the case been dealt with on indictment, a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment could have been imposed. This case affords no ground for thinking that the existing maximum penalties are inadequate.
§ Mr. NabarroWere not the circumstances of this child's home well known for several months before the prosecution took place? Can the right hon. Gentleman say why earlier action was not taken which would have avoided this disaster in the life of a four-year-old child?
§ Mr. EdeI have no information on the point which the hon. Member has just put to me, but I would point out that the prosecution was conducted by the N.S.P.C.C, who had had the case in hand.
§ Mr. J. Langford-HoltAs this was an indictable offence, could not the magistrates, had they been so minded, have sent the case to a higher court, where very much heavier penalties could have been imposed?
§ Mr. EdeYes, but I understand that the first thing which the N.S.P.C.C. said in presenting the case was that they desired to have it dealt with summarily.
§ Mr. NabarroIs it not a trifle incongruous that the House should at present be considering legislation to prevent cruelty to pet animals while these hideous crimes against children are allowed to be perpetrated?
§ Mr. EdeI am not responsible for the House considering pet animals. I stand by the view that the existing penalties are adequate. I was not responsible for the prosecution in this case.
§ Mr. ProfumoIs not this only one among a whole host of other cases where bestial cruelty to children has been displayed? Will the Home Secretary consider the advisability of increasing the maximum penalty in this year of 1951?
§ Mr. EdeNo, Sir. I think that had this case been tried on indictment, the penalty provided might then have proved adequate.
§ Mr. George ThomasIn view of the earlier statement of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who raised this matter, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is no undue delay in the bringing of proceedings once there is a sense of anxiety about the child?
§ Mr. EdeThe view of the Society, which I share in a good many cases, is that it is desirable to secure reform, if at all possible, rather than to lead to the possible break-up of a home. It may be that in this case too long a period was allowed to elapse. As I say, however, the Society have a very great experience in these matters and generally, I think, are to be supported.