§ 10 and 11. Mr. McKayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what were the circumstances which led to the certification of John Seaward, who was transferred from an approved school to an institution for mental defectives; and, when tested later, what standard of average mentality he was found to have;
(2) what kind of tests were made with John Seaward to justify his transfer to the institution for mental defectives; and what tests were nude that caused the previous decision to be reversed.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerThe certificates of two duly qualified medical practitioners satisfied my predecessor that Anthony John Seaward was a defective as defined in the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913. They classified him as a moral defective after examining him separately and obtaining information about him from his approved school, including the result of tests showing that his intelligence was above average. Their findings were confirmed on periodic review in the mental institution to which he was transferred.
The prison medical officer, who had him under observation in Leicester Prison for nearly three weeks while he was awaiting trial for offences committed when on licence from the Institution, came to a different conclusion from that reached by the other doctors who had examined him. But the decision was taken on the best medical opinion then available.
§ Mr. McKayIs the Home Secretary aware that his Answer to those two questions demonstrates the whole difficulty of deciding when a boy is a real defective? When there is a borderline case, can be explain what guides the Home Secretary in making his decision? What guides him in coming to the conclusion that a boy should go to a hospital for defectives? It seems to me that in many cases there is a tremendous amount of discrepancy and that this is a case which indicates the whole difficulty.
§ Mr. ButlerI think this difficulty was also realised by the Royal Commission on Mental Illness, which pointed out that there may be a difference in the medical opinion—which is exactly what happened in this particular case—especially when the patient's intelligence is above the 542 average. I regard this as a most difficult case, but I am satisfied that it was judged by the Secretary of State on the best information available to him from his medical advisers, which was all that he could do.