HC Deb 06 December 1951 vol 494 cc2552-5
36. Mr. Hale

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that David Ware, recently found guilty but insane on his own confession of the attempted murder of a woman by attacking her with a hammer, is not the same David Ware who once confessed to the murder, in similar circumstances, of a woman for which Walter Graham Rowland was convicted and hanged in 1947; and whether, in view of the fact that Rowland protested his innocence to the last, he will order an inquiry to ascertain whether any miscarriage of justice has occurred.

76. Mr. Sydney Silverman

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that David Ware, recently found guilty but insane on his own confession, of the attempted murder of a woman by attacking her with a hammer, is not the same David Ware who once confessed to the murder, in similar circumstances, of a woman for which Walter Graham Rowland was convicted and hanged in 1947; and whether, in view of the fact that Rowland protested his innocence to the last, he will order an inquiry to ascertain whether any miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The two men are the same. The confession was the subject at the time of an exhaustive inquiry by the late Mr. Jolly, K.C., appointed by the then Home Secretary, and Mr. Jolly's report was presented to Parliament in February, 1947, by command of His Majesty. In his report, Mr. Jolly rejected the confession which he regarded as false, and said that he was satisfied that there were no grounds for thinking that there had been any miscarriage of justice in the conviction of Rowland for murder. During the course of the inquiry Ware retracted his confession and in a signed statement published in the report said that his confession was absolutely untrue. There is nothing in the recent charge brought against Ware to require any further inquiry or action on my part.

Mr. Silverman

Would the right hon and learned Gentleman bear in mind that this case at the time occasioned the most acute public anxiety, that the recent development showing that this man had an insane obsession to do the very thing which he confessed to doing has served to increase that anxiety infinitely, that the police have in their possession a great deal of evidence in Rowland's favour which was never made available to the defence, and that in view of the enormous public importance of satisfying the public that an execution has not been carried out on an innocent man, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman cause a new inquiry to be made?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The late Mr. Jolly who conducted the inquiry was known to me for nearly 30 years as one of the most careful and conscientious men whom I have ever known at the Bar. The results of the inquiry showed that he had taken immense pains with the subject, and I do not myself see that there is any reason to throw doubt on the conclusion to which he came.

Mr. Hale

In view of the fact—I do not think there is any dispute—that David John Ware is now in Broadmoor as a certified criminal lunatic convicted of a crime almost identical with the one to which he confessed, and that he made a statement at the time that he could not help doing these things and wanted to be protected from himself, does not this really give rise to the necessity for some further inquiry, and would the right hon. and learned Gentleman start by making all relevant documents available in the Library of the House of Commons?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

With great respect to what the hon. Member says, I do not think that anything that has been said throws doubt on the inquiry which was held or justifies a further inquiry. If hon. Members have any specific points which they want to refer to me I shall, of course, be very pleased to look at them, but I do not want anything that is said by me today to throw doubt on the results of the inquiry which was conducted by Mr. Jolly.

Sir H. Shawcross

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that the police had a great deal of evidence favourable to Rowland which they failed to disclose to the defence, and does he agree that it is the paramount duty of the prosecution and the police in all criminal cases to disclose all information, whether favourable or unfavourable to the defence?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I certainly agree with the last part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, that it is the practice at the Bar of England, as I understand it, that prosecuting counsel must make known to the defence any evidence which is relevant to the matter. I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that prosecutions are not a matter for the Home Office; they are a matter for the Law Officers' Department.

But with regard to the first part of the question, I have no information on the point which the hon. Member put to me. It came to my knowledge for the first time when he said it. I shall have inquiries made into it. Of course, I do say that it is contrary to practice that evidence should be withheld, but I must not be taken as admitting for a moment that that has been done, because I have not had a chance of inquiring into it.

Mr. Silverman

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the, police had in their possession a statement from a woman witness fully confirming Rowland's evidence as to an alibi, that the evidence was not made available to the defence, and that it was the subject of a later application in the Court of Criminal Appeal, which court held that the evidence was then too late? It that evidence was not made available to the defence until after the trial, and if that evidence is now added to what Mr. Jolly did not know, that Mr. Ware was subject to an insane impulse to do this very kind of act, do not those two facts added together in themselves justify a most searching new inquiry now?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

It would be quite wrong for me to attempt to re-try the matter by answers to Questions in this House, and I do not think that the House can expect that I should go further than I have said, which is that if the hon. Gentleman or if any hon. Members who are interested will bring specific facts to my attention I shall inquire into those facts.