THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JORDAN (Hansard, 4 November 1958)

§ Mr. Douglas L. S. Nairn (Central Ayrshire)

I will be careful in what I have to say, because I realise that it will be extremely easy on this subject to get out of order, and therefore I will have to leave unsaid something which it might have been helpful for me to say. I am raising the case of William Jordan, because the action on which I seek clarification was action taken by a Crown counsel for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is answerable. Very briefly, the facts of the case are as follows.

A rent collector named Daniel Wyllie, in the course of his duties, went to Jordan's house to collect the rent. William Jordan, who was known to be heavily in debt and in arrears with his rent, killed Wyllie while he was there, trussed up his body and hid it in his house, where it was later found by the police. Jordan was charged with the murder of Wyllie and also with robbing him of a sum of 911 money. Prior to the trial, Crown counsel accepted a plea of guilty to culpable homicide, and Mr. Skae, on behalf of the Crown, said that this decision had been come to because there was evidence of diminished responsibility. He also mentioned that there was a suggestion that Jordan's wife had told Jordan some two weeks earlier that Wyllie had put his arm round her waist in an unduly familiar way. The decision to accept this plea of guilty to culpable homicide has caused considerable concern amongst responsible people in my constituency.

There are, I think, two main reasons for this. The first is that, because the Crown accepted a plea of guilty to culpable homicide, the medical evidence regarding Jordan was not divulged at the trial. The second reason is that the suggestion that Wyllie might have behaved in an unduly familiar way towards Mrs. Jordan went unchallenged, and it was not possible to call evidence about Wyllie's character, which is known to have been exemplary.

It is not only necessary that justice should be done and be seen to be done, but it is also necessary that justice should be seen to be done to innocent parties as well as to the accused. My first question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is whether Crown counsel could not have avoided this situation in which it was possible to put a slur on the name of the deceased man, Daniel Wyllie, when in the circumstances there can be no possible opportunity for his name to be cleared.

In reply to a Parliamentary Question. my right hon. and learned Friend said: A plea of guilty to culpable homicide was accepted because Crown counsel were satisfied on the evidence in their possession, in particular the medical evidence regarding the mental condition of the accused, that at the time of the offence he was suffering from diminished responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1958; Vol. 592, c. 23.] The medical evidence has now come into my possession. Two of the three doctors who examined Jordan indicated that in their opinion he was suffering from some weakness of mind, but all three agreed that he was sane and fit to plead

My second question, therefore, is whether it would not have been more satisfactory to have allowed this case to have been tried before a jury. My right 912 hon. and learned Friend will have noticed that in his reply to me he used the words "in particular the medical evidence". I should like to ask whether in fact it was on the medical evidence alone that the decision was taken.

In raising the subject tonight I most sincerely hope that this will enable my right hon. and learned Friend to give answers which will entirely reassure the public. But, first and foremost, I sincerely hope that it will enable him absolutely and completely to clear the good name of the deceased man, Daniel Wyllie.

§ The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan)

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) has stated that there is in his constituency considerable concern, which I think was the exact phrase he used, about the case to which he has referred. He has also asked me several questions. I hope that I may be able, in answering those questions, to dispel any doubt that may still exist in the constituency and in the neighbourhood about the proceedings in this case.

I think that the House will have noted that underlying all my hon. Friend's questions, and, I Think, inherent in his whole speech, was the suggestion that the accused's plea should not have been accepted and that the case should have gone for trial. That plea was accepted because Crown counsel, after full consideration of all the evidence in the case and, in particular, the Crown medical evidence, were satisfied that on that evidence they would not be entitled to ask a jury to convict of any crime higher than that of culpable homicide, the reason being that they were satisfied that that evidence disclosed that the accused was suffering from diminished responsibility. The acceptance of a plea, just like a question of whether proceedings should be taken or should not be taken in any particular case, involves the exercise of a discretion by Crown counsel, and I did not understand my hon. Friend to challenge that position.

The first question which my hon. Friend posed related to what was said by the learned advocate depute and by counsel for the defence at the time that the accused came up for sentence in regard to certain alleged familiarities between the deceased and the wife of the 913 accused. Both learned counsel made it quite clear that the only evidence of any such familiarities came from the accused or his wife. The matter was mentioned by Crown counsel with a view to bringing before the judge any possible mitigating circumstance which he understood might be there.

I propose, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, to read certain extracts which were not fully published in the Press about exactly what did take place at this trial. Before I read them, may I add that the learned advocate depute further stated to the court that the character of the deceased was unexceptionable. I stress these words because they did not appear in the report of the proceedings.

I now come to the exact proceedings. The relevant passages are as follows: THE ADVOCATE DEPUTE: There is no information in my possession stemming from any other source than from the accused himself that there was any provocation at all in the case. There is a suggestion, as I understand it, that the accused's wife told the accused that some two weeks before the killing the rent collector had put an arm round her waist in an unduly familiar manner. I do not think there is anything more that I can say at this stage to assist Your Lordship. Lord Russell, the presiding judge, then said: There is no doubt he is sane and fit to plead? Mr. Irvine Smith, who was counsel for the accused, then said: There is no doubt about that. It is against that background that comes the statement, according to him, by his wife, that this rent collector had made an approach to her. That would upset a normal man, in my submission, but to a man with the mental background and the mental attitude towards his wife, obsessed by jealousy, of this man, it drove him to breaking point. He waited in for that rent collector to call and he challenged him, he tells me. The rent collector denied it and thereafter a quarrel ensued which ended in the stabbing of this unfortunate man. Counsel then went on to deal with matters not connected with this particular issue, and then Lord Russell said: Mr. Advocate Depute, there is nothing in that that you are in a position to contradict: 914 at the same time, you are not able to confirm them except that they emanated from the accused himself? THE ADVOCATE DEPUTE: No. At any rate in view of the character of the rent collector, I cannot accept or deny it."

Then he said this, which is very important, and I hope it will allay any misapprehensions in the minds of those in my hon. Friend's constituency: His character is unexceptionable, or was "— that is the man who is now dead— …and that is why I say that the provocation, if there was, stems entirely from the accused or from the accused's side… I am glad to have this opportunity of again saying that, to the best of my belief, the character of the deceased was unexceptionable.

The next question asked was in connection with the statement in the medical reports to which my hon. Friend has referred, that the accused was sane and fit to plead. My hon. Friend poses this question: why, if he was sane and fit to plead, was the plea accepted? It has never been suggested in this case at any time that the accused was not sane and that he was not fit to plead. Had he not been fit to plead then, of course, no plea could have been tendered on his part. What was clear on the evidence to which I have already referred is that he was suffering from diminished responsibility, and that is a different thing.

Finally, my hon. Friend asks whether the plea of the accused was accepted on the medical evidence alone. I must not answer that question. For reasons which I feel sure the hon. Member and the House will appreciate, it is not the practice to disclose what evidence is in the possession of the Crown authorities. I trust that what I have said has helped to remove any misapprehensions which may still exist in the minds of my hon. Friend's constituents.