§ 37. Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the alleged offence against the Road Traffic Act that resulted in Mr. Thompson being taken into Brixton Police Station on 16th April; who tendered an apology to Mr. Thompson; and why.
§ Mr. RentonMr. Thompson was reported for an alleged offence under Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. The officer on duty tendered an apology in accordance with the normal practice in the Metropolitan Police when a charge is refused.
§ Mr. BurdenWould my hon. and learned Friend say what was the offence with which he was charged? Will he also say whether the two officers who took him into custody were in plain 617 clothes and whether he first spoke to them or they saw some reason for approaching him first?
§ Mr. RentonHe was charged with the offence of driving a motor vehicle when under the influence of drink. I am not in a position to answer the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. May I say that the refusal of a charge does not imply any impropriety on the part of the officers who reported the matter. It is not an uncommon occurrence for officers on duty to refuse a charge reported by a constable, and in the Metropolitan Police for many years the practice has been to tender an apology when the charge has been refused. I think that it will be a sad day when the making and acceptance of a generous apology ceases to be the practice.
§ 38. Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mrs. Thompson, who was charged at Brixton police station on 16th April with being drunk and disorderly, was examined by a doctor before being charged.
§ Mr. RentonNo, Sir.
§ Mr. BurdenIs it not most odd to apologise? According to the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend in the answer which he gave me last week, when the husband was in the police court the police brought the police surgeon, who found that Mr. Thompson was not under the influence of drink. If that is the case, why was the wife, who was charged at the same time, not examined by the medical officer? Would he not agree that in the circumstances it is most disgraceful that this woman should have been charged the following day with being drunk and disorderly? Why was the police surgeon not asked to examine her?
§ Mr. RentonThe two cases, although they were both cases of drinking, are not strictly comparable, because they are slightly different offences. One is for driving under the influence of drink and the other is for being drunk and disorderly. The magistrate, in dismissing the charge against Mrs. Thompson, said,
I shall dismiss this case but it is obvious that your behaviour was such that it naturally led to your being arrested.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerAre not the facts elicited by the hon. Gentleman in the last two weeks through Questions very disturbing indeed? Whereas, of course, it is very proper to stand by the police in the proper discharge of their duty, is it not also right that they should be reprimanded when they have done something palpably wrong and stupid? Would it not be much better if the hon. and learned Gentleman said that they had make a mistake in this case?
§ Mr. RentonThe case of whether a police officer should be reprimanded is for the Chief Officer of Police. It is not considered by the courts necessary that in every case of drunk and disorderly that is brought before them there should be medical evidence, and the police officer in this case, considering the facts of the case, decided that medical evidence was not necessary before bringing the charge to court.
§ Mr. BurdenIn view of the most unsatisfactory replies that I have received during the last two weeks, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment in order that still further facts may be elicited.
§ Mr. LiptonOn a point of order. May I also give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment because, when the facts are known, it will be seen that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is quite unjustified in his accusation?
§ Mr. SpeakerI sympathise with the hon. Member, but all this is completely out of order and beyond my control.
§ Mr. BurdenFurther to that point of order. Is it not obvious that this is a case of sour grapes by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)?