§ 25 Mr. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the offence committed by F. Simm and Michael Hogan at Parkhurst; and whether, in such cases, prisoners are allowed under his regulations the right of appeal against a decision to impose a sentence of flogging.
§ Sir D. Maxwell FyfeThe offence was incitement to mutiny. There is no provision for appeal against an award of corporal punishment, but Section 18 of the Prison Act, 1952, provides that such an award shall not be carried into effect 562 until it has been confirmed by the Secretary of State.
§ Mr. YatesIs it not a fact that flogging is not administered except in the case of violence to officers? If it is a question of incitement to violence, does it not mean that the conditions in Parkhurst are so serious that they ought to be investigated? A Select Committee did look into the point and were very concerned about some of the conditions inside giving rise to dissatisfaction. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman looked into that; if not, will he look into it?
§ Sir D. Maxwell FyfeEvery case of corporal punishment is personally considered by the Home Secretary and this case was personally considered by me. The position was that about 600 prisoners were present. The incident was directed against the Governor personally and was intended as a demonstration against the three-shift time-table, which enables longer hours to be worked—a most desirable thing in every prison—which had been introduced that day.
I would point out to the hon. Member that the board of visitors discriminated between the two prisoners, 12 strokes being awarded to Simm and six to Hogan. Simm twice before during previous sentences had been convicted of incitement to mutiny, but corporal punishment was not administered. I went into the facts very carefully and I thought it a proper case. I think that in a situation like that, when the Governor is confronted with such a position, one has to apply the law.