HC Deb 03 December 1953 vol 521 cc1309-13
29. Mr. Edward Evans

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Scotland Yard officers who interrogated and took a statement from the defendant Roberts, a deaf mute, subsequently charged with murder and acquitted at the Carmarthenshire Assizes in March of this year, had the assistance during the interrogation of a qualified welfare worker for the deaf or a teacher of the deaf.

37. Mr. S. Silverman

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances two senior officers from Scotland Yard obtained from Mr. George Roberts, who has been deaf and dumb since birth and who has never been taught any known sign-language, an eight-page written and signed confession of murder, of which he was subsequently acquitted on indictment.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

On the occasion in question, Mr. Roberts first answered questions through a police officer who has a command of the deaf and dumb alphabet and signs. These questions and answers were subsequently repeated to Mr. Roberts, one by one, through a competent and experienced lady interpreter, who reported that he fully understood them and that they were accurately recorded. Mr. Roberts did not sign the record.

The interpreter has worked for 19 years with the Llanelly and West Wales Mission to the Deaf and Dumb and has for many years acted as interpreter at Llanelly Magistrates' Court. She was assisted by her husband, who is himself deaf and partially dumb, and has been engaged in similar work for 35 years. Although Mr. Roberts does not know the deaf and dumb alphabet, the interpreter stated that she found no undue difficulty in communicating with him by means of signs and gestures commonly used by illiterate deaf mutes.

Mr. Evans

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that very full answer, but is he aware that all those who are interested in deaf welfare, including the principal societies, feel that when a deaf person is first charged with a criminal offence it is incumbent that he should be accompanied by a qualified deaf teacher, missioner, or one who has some kind of academic record and qualifications, in order that he shall understand the full implication of the charge, and to safeguard him in any answer he might make to it?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I entirely agree that the greatest possible care should be taken in dealing with such cases. If I may interpose a personal experience, I defended, on a criminal offence, someone who was not only deal and dumb but blind, so I do know the problem from practical experience. The reason why I rather developed my answer was that I wanted to say that the lady in question and her husband had had great experience. I should like to consider this point, and I shall certainly bear in mind the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Silverman

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Roberts knew no sign language at all? Is he also aware that on the occasion to which he refers there was also present an educated and literate deaf mute who had known Mr. Roberts for 26 years, who was recognised as the only person who could communicate to him, and who has since stated in writing that, so far from admitting the offence, Mr. Roberts gave a flat and emphatic denial to it? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that none of the facts which are contained in his answer, and which would seem to establish the authenticity of the evidence, were ever placed before the judge and the jury at the trial at which this man was acquitted?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am very sorry that I cannot accept the statements which the hon. Gentleman has made without further investigation, but I shall certainly investigate them. I am surprised at what he says, because I have the transcript in front of me, and the name of the lady I mentioned appears as having given evidence at the trial. Unless my transcript is wrong I do not think that the second part of what the hon. Gentleman says can be right.

Mr. Silverman

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perhaps under a misconception. Is it not the case that this man was ultimately acquitted because the prosecution offered no evidence against him, in the circumstances that they admitted that the only evidence they had was this alleged confession which they were not in a position to prove, and no attempt was made to prove it in court?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The name of the lady I mentioned appears in the transcript, and her examination covers pages 44 to 46. At that time a submission as to admissibility was made. That was replied to; there was a decision and, after that, the prosecution made a statement in the matter. What the hon. Gentleman said surprised me, in view of the fact that this lady gave evidence at the trial.

36. Mr. S. Silverman

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation has been offered to Mr. George Roberts who was detained and imprisoned for several days, without a warrant and without a charge being made, for the purpose of interrogation; and whether he has considered the remarks of Mr. Justice Devlin in directing the jury to acquit him, the prosecution offering no evidence against him.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I have considered the remarks made by Mr. Justice Devlin and have had full inquiry made. I am informed that on the morning of 11th January, 1953, Mr. Roberts was asked to go to Carmarthen police station in order that he might be questioned through a competent interpreter and readily agreed to do so. He remained there until 14th January, but he was under no compulsion to do so. On the contrary, he was clearly told each day that he was free to go home for the night, but he indicated that he would prefer to remain at the police station and was allowed to do so. He was not at any time detained in a cell and was treated with every consideration. I can find no grounds for any ex gratia payment to him from public funds.

Mr. Silverman

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it perfectly clear—because so far he has not done so—that it is not now contended that Mr. Roberts ever did confess to murder or that he had anything whatever to do with this crime? Secondly, does he agree with the statement made by Mr. Justice Devlin that there is no power whatever in this country to compel anyone to answer questions and still less to detain him for three days in a police station, whether in the daytime or at night time, in order to compel him to do so?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

On the first point, nobody asked me to asseverate the matter. The prosecution, of course, offered no evidence and Mr. Roberts is an innocent man. That follows, and that is why I did not mention it. I am very glad that the hon. Member has referred to what, if I may say so with respect, were the most useful remarks of Mr. Justice Devlin, that there is nothing in our country such as, to use his words, novelists and writers of "shockers" call "detaining for questioning." A man cannot be detained for questioning. A charge must be brought and he must be brought up before the magistrate. I thought that was a most useful thing to emphasise.

Mr. Silverman

In view of that statement, for which we are all very grateful indeed, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this man was, in fact, detained for more than three days in a police station without a charge being made and only for the purpose of questioning; and that, in view of what is now known about the impossibility of communicating with him, it is quite unsafe for anyone to suppose that he was a voluntary guest there? In those circumstances, will he not reconsider the matter from the point of view of giving the man adequate compensation for the detention which he undoubtedly suffered?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I appreciate the hon. Member's feelings, but I have read the case over and over again and considered it very carefully. I am sorry, but I cannot go as far as the hon. Member suggests.

38. Mr. S. Silverman

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who were the two senior police officers at Scotland Yard who were engaged upon the case of Reginav.Roberts, a trial for murder; and upon what duties they are now engaged.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The two officers were Detective Superintendent Spooner and Detective Sergeant Millen. Superintendent Spooner is attached to the Central Detective Office at New Scotland Yard. Sergeant Millen is on a course at the Police College.

Mr. Silverman

I have no supplementary question to ask on this Question but, having regard to the unsatisfactory answer to the previous Question, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on a suitable occasion.