CASE OF JAMES WEAVER (Hansard, 24 March 1955)

§ Mr. William Teeling (Brighton, Pavilion)
I apologise to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary for asking him to stay on a little longer following the sort of afternoon and evening which he has had; but it has been my luck to obtain the Adjournment for tonight, and I want to raise the question of the granting of a pardon to a man sentenced for murder, but eventually reprieved, and this is a matter which my right hon. Friend alone can answer.
I should like to say at once that I am not a detective, nor a lawyer; nor will I try to criticise the judgment of the trial judge, or the judgment in the Court of Appeal. All that I wish to do is to ask a few questions of the Home Secretary, following some information which I have been able to obtain, to see whether there is any possibility of this case being reconsidered.
Briefly—and this case goes a long way back—the facts are that in April, 1928, a retired chemist in Brighton, Mr. Friend-Smith, was attacked and taken up to the Downs outside Brighton, where he was most brutally treated and robbed of his money, and also his watch and chain; and here I should say that the watch and chain are not unimportant to this case. Later, he was able to get back to his home, but he had been so badly beaten up that his wife could not recognise him; she could only recognise his voice. A doctor was sent for; he was seriously injured, but he did not die for nearly five weeks; that is, about the middle of May, 1928. A short time after this attack, three men were arrested in Brighton and charged with the attack. They were, however, allowed to go off on bail so that, apparently, nothing more serious was considered at that time.
It is my belief, as well as that of many other people, that the police knew that these men had been connected with a gang in the town, and that this was a very good excuse for getting rid of them. I do not believe that any of the police 2421 officials believed that the case would get to the stage of a charge for murder, because the man was not dead; so there was no question of these three being wanted for that. As time went on, after Friend-Smith's death, the police found themselves unexpectedly more and more involved. When these men were arrested they asked to be confronted with the man who had been injured; a reasonable request, one would think, but the police would not allow it.
Lord Hewart said he presumed that that was because the man was too ill; but when he eventually died, these three were re-arrested, charged with murder, and taken to Lewes. After a four-day trial they were condemned to death; but the attitude of the three men would rather incline one to think that they never expected anything like this to happen.
Later, the appeal was heard and Lord Hewart turned it down. He made a very famous speech about what circumstantial evidence really can mean. I believe that it has been quoted frequently since then. It is not uninteresting to remember that this tragedy was taking place at the same time as the appeal over the famous Oscar Slater case was being tried. Englandand Scotland were particularly interested in both cases. They caused a very considerable sensation.
On 14th August, the then Home Secretary, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, turned down the suggestion of a reprieve. That night three women went to see Lady Rawson the wife—now the widow—of my predecessor, Sir Cooper Rawson, and told her remarkable tales about what was going on at that time in Brighton. I have talked to her about this recently myself. She remembers it well. The visitors also told her about the whereabouts of the watch and chain which, during the inquiries, had never been found.
This lady felt that this was definitely evidence which should be brought before the Home Secretary even though he had already refused a reprieve and there were now only a few hours before execution was due to take place. Next morning she got into touch with Sir Cooper Rawson, who was in London, and they went to see the Home Secretary. Later, there was a discussion on the subject and, finally, 14 hours before the execution was due, the reprieve was granted.
2422 One can imagine that that caused a considerable sensation in the country and especially in the Brighton area. So much was that so that the next day the Home Secretary felt it incumbent to issue a statement, in which he said: It is unusual for the Home Secretary to make any statement about capital cases other than the official notification of his decision, but, as Parliament is not sitting and as the Brighton murder has excited public interest, the Home Secretary thinks it desirable to amplify the official statement issued last night regarding the three prisoners convicted of the murder. The statement added: The proper function, and the only function, of the Home Secretary is to decide whether, when a prisoner has been convicted of murder, and as a necessary consequence sentenced to the only penalty prescribed by law for this offence, there are any circumstances which would justify him in recommending mitigation of that penalty, or whether the law should be allowed to take its course. In considering this question the Home Secretary is bound by no rules of procedure. He takes every relevant circumstance into consideration and consults with any person who is in a position to give useful information or assistance. Finally, it said: In the case of the Brighton murder the Home Secretary has for many days been giving the most careful consideration to all the circumstances, and yesterday, upon a further review of the case, felt justified in reconsidering the previous decision not to interfere with the sentence passed by the court. The Home Secretary thinks it desirable to point out that his recommendation for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative does not cast any reflection upon the justice of the jury's verdict or the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, but he has felt just that element of doubt in the case which, in his opinion, makes it undesirable that the irrevocable penalty should be inflicted. "Just that element of doubt"—that surely is what we ought to be considering again. I should like to know whether, as time went on, the Home Office ever took any further steps to find out more about the watch and chain—about that element of doubt of which the Home Secretary spoke.
Why does this man, Weaver, ask for a pardon? He says: I have decided to ask for your help, after seeing that the widow of the murdered man has now passed away. The widow actually died about four weeks ago, and that, presumably, is the reason why he had kept quiet after coming out of prison in 1941. I feel that as the reopening of the case can cause no distress to the only close kin of the 2423 murdered man, now is the time to make a determined effort, for the sake of my family and my own peace of mind during my remaining years, to clear my name. Further, he says: I am hoping that you will use your influence to persuade the Home Secretary to reopen the case. I should like to have some of the original witnesses in the case questioned again, particularly the two police officers who conducted the inquiry, Mr. Cyril Beer and Mr. Thomas Wells, who later became Chief Constable of Hull. In addition, a woman named Nell Watts, who now lives, I believe, in London, can I am sure throw considerable light on the actual crime. She was closely associated with Donovan, who is now dead, and once told me she would see I was not found guilty as she knew I was not concerned. That letter I passed on to the Home Secretary, and I must say that I was greatly impressed by its contents, as I believe was the Home Secretary, also. That is the reason why this man is now asking for a pardon. I have had only three weeks in which to look into this matter and try to find out something about it. Naturally, the first thing was to try to find Nell Watts. I must say that I am grateful to the police of Brighton for the efforts they made to do this. She has been found and has been spoken to by a friend of mine, as well as, I believe, by the Home Office.
In speaking to my friend, she said that she had nothing to add to the evidence which she gave at the trial, but that, perhaps, it would not be a bad idea to consult one of the other three men who is still living, a man named Taylor. She said that she thought that if he wished, he could probably throw considerable light on the case. Taylor has changed his name since he came out of prison. We do not know where he is, and he has not come forward. Donovan died some years ago.
Then, out of the blue, I received a letter from one of the jurors—a very elderly gentleman now—and I went to see him. He told me that after the case was over he felt so upset about it that he personally wrote to Sir William Joynson-Hicks. He said he thought that the sight of the widow in weeds sitting there and looking so miserable all the time had considerably influenced the jury.
He pointed out in his letter that although he had asked for both Taylor 2424 and Weaver to be condemned to death, he had also asked that they should be recommended to mercy, but that others on the jury who knew Brighton very well, and who knew this group of people, had persuaded him not to insist on that. It was also said that one could not be condemned without all three being condemned. I do not know whether the Home Secretary can tell us whether that is right or not.
Lastly, the juror suggested that I should try to find some of the other jurors so that they could all get together and do something to clear this man's name. I have only been able to appeal to the Press for that purpose in the last few days, and as a result I have found another juror, who has written to me from Newhaven as follows: Dear Sir, Just to let you know I was one of the jury in the case in 1928 for the Brighton murder, and I was very pleased when I saw on the placards the three men were reprieved on the morning of their sentence as I was the one who argued for manslaughter and not murder until I almost collapsed and had to give in. I had just come off another case when called up again. Excuse scribble due to neuritis—and old age—85 in 10 days. It is a point to be remembered that these jurors, and practically everybody else connected with the case, are in their 70s or 80s, if they are alive at all. If we are to do anything for this man, it will probably have to be done fairly soon. I should like the Home Secretary to get into touch with the two ex-police constables, because I think it better that he. rather than I, should do so.
The most important point of all came up yesterday, when counsel for the defence of one of the accused at the trial spoke to me and told me of something about which I knew nothing—I wonder whether the Home Secretary knows about it—namely, that a year after this case was over he was sent for by Sir Ernley Blackwell, who was then legal adviser to the Home Office, and who showed him a statement made to the police by the murdered man, who had lived for a month after he had been attacked. The police said that they did not believe that statement and, therefore, they did not bring it up at the trial.
Lord Hewart, when summing up, said that it was amazing how Mr. Smith appeared to be very reticent about the matter. But he was not. He made a 2425 statement—and when Sir Ernley Blackwell asked learned counsel to whom he had shown the statement, "What would have happened if you had known about it at the time?" my friend said, "Without any doubt I would have got them off." That reminds one very much of the Oscar Slater case, the appeal about which was going on at that time. I ask the Home Secretary to look into that point and remember that what happened in the Oscar Slater case might very well have happened in this.
I only ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to keep this matter open for the time being, to give us an opportunity to try to find out all the extra evidence and information that we can. We must not forget that we are dealing here with a man who is only 50 years of age; who has quite a time in front of him, and who, in his final words to me, said: I beg of you from the bottom of my heart to do what you can to help me. God knows I am innocent. I shall face Him when my time comes at last with a clear conscience. But for the sake of my children I would like my name cleared in this world, too.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George)
In the short time that remains I shall deal with this very difficult case, which occurred a considerable time ago and which gave the Home Secretary of the day—Sir William Joynson-Hicks—a very great deal of anxiety.
The prisoners submitted a number of statements and petitions after their conviction, criticising evidence given at the trial and claiming that various people could establish their innocence. These were carefully investigated and all possible inquiries were made. In no case was the prisoner's claim substantiated, and Sir William Joynson-Hicks came to the conclusion that the law must take its course. On further consideration, however, he decided that there remained a scintilla of doubt. This did not mean that he thought that the men were innocent—indeed, I believe that in a statement he referred to the fact that he thought that the verdict was a correct one—but it meant that he was not so completely satisfied of their guilt as to be justified in allowing the irrevocable penalty to be exacted.
2426 The Home Secretary's position in this matter and the significance of his decision were set out in a statement which, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, was communicated to the Press. That statement was issued on 15th August, 1928, and put the situation very clearly. My hon. Friend has read some of the relevant parts already and I shall not go over that any further.
From time to time while the prisoners were serving their sentences, all three of them submitted petitions protesting their innocence, but no new information of substance was produced which was not before the Home Secretary before he came to his decision. The scintilla of doubt has never been resolved one way or the other. Like my hon. Friend, I would like to see this doubt removed. I assure my hon. Friend that I am very ready to consider, as, indeed, all my predecessors have been, any new information which can be produced and to have it investigated, as far as investigation is possible after a lapse of twenty-five years.
We have already followed up the only new line of inquiry, which was suggested in a letter from Weaver which my hon. Friend sent to me. It suggested that a woman who was associated with one of the other two men had told Weaver at the time that she knew that he was not concerned in the murder and would see that he was not found guilty. Weaver added that this woman was not called at the trial. In this recollection he is at fault. She was called by the prosecution, but her evidence related to the movements of one of the other defendants. We made immediate inquiries, on receiving that information about this woman, to try to trace her. She eventually was found and was asked whether she had any information to give. She has told us that she has no information beyond what she gave at the trial, and, in particular, no information which would throw any doubt at all upon Weaver's conviction.
I assure my hon. Friend that if new information is produced in the future it will be examined promptly and thoroughly. I would emphasise—I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate this—that it must be new information. There is no purpose to be served by my 2427 re-examining evidence which was before the courts and before the Home Secretary at the time. It was their responsibility to come to a decision on the information, and I have no reason to think that the decisions which they reached were not the right ones.

§ Mr. Teeling
Will my right hon. and gallant Friend look into what counsel for the defence told us about the evidence 2428 given by Mr. Smith shortly before he died, and which was held by the police?

§ Major Lloyd-George
I will certainly do that, but I feel that that was possibly done in one of the many reviews of the case.