HC Deb 27 May 1966 vol 729 cc910-22

12.2 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

The matter which I have to raise makes a disagreeable story. Its nature is such that I have thought twice about raising it here at all, and I decided to do so only after thinking it over carefully and giving the mainly afflicted parties a chance to think it over and decide whether, on balance, it would be right to raise this story publicly.

As far as concerns this House, the story of John Harold William Moon began on 30th November, 1962, when he appeared before the Ashford Juvenile Court and was found guilty of larceny of cash. He was committed to an approved school. He was assessed at Redhill Certifying School, and he was then sent to Court Lees School, Godstone.

On 13th April, 1965, while on home leave from Godstone, he took a 12-yearold girl into a wood at the point of a gun and attempted to rape her. He told the girl that if she informed anyone of the attack he would return and get her, adding that he had already shot one girl. The girl in question was the daughter of a builder who lives in Ashford, Mr. A. E. Wills.

Perhaps I should say that we have discussed the desirability or otherwise of mentioning names in this case, and that I think it would be wrong to suppress them. The names are well known locally, and I think that the Press can be trusted not to aggravate the experiences of this family.

The day following the attack Mr. Wills traced and identified the youth Moon from a description given by his daughter. Moon was arrested, charged, and appeared before the Ashford Juvenile Court. The case was then twice adjourned for inquiries. Medical evidence was then submitted—and I ask the House to note this carefully—that he was suffering from mental disorder to such a degree as to warrant his detention in hospital for medical treatment.

Accordingly, on 25th June, 1965, the court ordered, under section 60 of the Mental Health Act, 1959, that Moon be detained at Harperbury Hospital, St. Albans. Mr. Wills was given to understand that this would be for at least three years, owing to the youth's previous record which included similar assaults. For reasons which I do not understand, but which I hope the Under-Secretary of State will be able to explain, Moon was not made subject to a restriction order under Section 65 of the Act. In effect, in cases of special risk this subjects the offender to special restrictions which can be varied only on the authority of the Secretary of State.

Moon was given home leave at Christmas, 1965, and on 26th December he assaulted a 16-year old girl in Ashford. He was not caught, and undetected presumably returned to Harperbury. The following February, 1966, he was given birthday leave. He returned to Ashford, and on this occasion committed an assault on an 18-year old hospital nurse, who was engaged to be married. Incidentally, this nurse was a close friend of the mother of the original victim. She was a colleague in the same hospital as Mrs. Wills. On this occasion the nurse identified Moon and he appeared before the magistrates at the end of February.

The feelings of Mr. and Mrs. Wills on reading an account of this case in the local papers can hardly be imagined. I do not propose to leave all of it to the imagination of the House or the Under-Secretary. The hon. and learned Gentleman should know what the consequences were. Both Mr. and Mrs. Wills had from the outset devoutly hoped that their daughter would not learn of these further developments, because the first incident was beginning to fade from her mind. But of course she did. She gained full knowledge of the incidents, and was seriously disturbed.

It is not necessary to enter into the effect which this had on the relationship between the girl and her parents. She had received from her father a solemn assurance that Moon was out of harm's way, and the effects were grievous. I shall read what Mr. Wills wrote on 7th March, the week in which the case came to light and to the courts. He said: She is now most distressed and upset, and feels that she might well have been a victim, in view of his previous threat to her. As I was assured that he would be away receiving medical treatment for at least three years, my wife and I were able to assure our daughter that it would not be necessary to move away right out of the county, as was her only wish at that time. Now, of course, in view of the recent events, she insists that we now do so. Our daughter's safety and peace of mind are, of course, our chief concern, but as a small builder, it has taken me years to build up a regular clientele, and by moving away my livelihood would be put in jeopardy. It seems to me, and I hope that it will seem to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that if this man and his family are compelled to move, in effect to take refuge in another part of the country, this really will constitute a most frightful reproach to the forces of law and order.

To complete the story, after his final appearance before the Ashford magistrates Moon was removed to Harper-bury Hospital for further medical examination. He came before the court on 17th March, when the court decided, in the light of the medical evidence before it, to place him on probation for three years with a condition of residence at Darenth Park Hospital, Kent, for a maximum period of one year.

It is not for me to comment on that decision, though I think it may well be that the police could perhaps, and should perhaps, in a case of this kind, have asked that it should be committed to quarter sessions or assizes. This is an aspect to which I shall call the attention of the Under-Secretary. It is something in respect of which his right hon. Friend may care to consider the need for a reminder to chief constables when cases of this kind arise.

These are the facts. I do not think that they are in dispute. I have taken most of them from the letter of explanation which the Home Secretary sent me on 19th April, and I do not think that the Under Secretary will deny that they raise questions of the utmost gravity.

How can it be that a youth in these circumstances, suffering from mental disorder to such a degree as to warrant his detention in hospital for medical treatment was allowed, not once but twice, to return home on leave and to commit on each occasion sexual assaults on these girls?

There can be only one of two answers. Either a very serious misjudgment was made in this case. If so, the Under-Secretary should tell us, whatever the consequences may be for individuals. Or, if we are to accept that no serious misjudgment was made, something is very much awry with our arrangements for dealing with cases of this kind. It must be one or the other, and if the second alternative be true, since there are quite a number of Moons in our society today this is a very serious matter.

Whatever the answer to the question, I am sure that the public interest requires a very searching inquiry to be made into this case, together with an examination of some of the considerations which arise from it. I am not asking the Under-Secretary now to agree that there should be such an inquiry; I know how Under-Secretaries are placed. But I must ask him to convey to the Home Secretary my request, and also to see that the House is informed in due course about the decision that is to be made. It would be wrong to allow this case to slip past without the sharpest scrutiny.

Let us consider the questions which arise from this occurrence. Why, in the first place, was Moon not subject to a retention order under Section 65? Who decides this? How is it decided? Because he was not detained under Section 65, the Home Secretary tells me, the grant to him of leave of absence from Harpenbury was a matter for the responsible medical officer, and was not subject to my consent. What consideration went into the granting of such leave within six months of a criminal assault on a girl of 12? What consideration went into the granting of such leave again, six weeks later? More seriously, what is the situation now?

The Home Secretary tells me that the court, the hospital, the probation officer and all concerned are well aware of the need for Moon to be closely supervised.

That I can well believe. But the Home Secretary adds: It is most unlikely, for example, that the question of leave will be considered for some time". Unlikely ! It was that sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's letter which decided me and Mr. Wills to raise this matter publicly. What in the world does that mean? How long is "some time"? How, in the light of all the circumstances, is it possible for home leave even to be remotely considered for this youth?

I am most anxious not to appear, or to make the Wills family appear, in any way vindictive. The House must accept my assurance that they are anything but that. Throughout my dealings with Mr. and Mrs. Wills both have displayed an exemplary attitude. They have no animosity towards the youth in question. But they have, as any of us would have, a deep concern for the safety and peace of mind of their daughter—and after what has happened they are entitled to feel mistrustful.

If this family is led, not unreasonably and not neurotically, but soberly, to move to another part of the country because their daughter cannot feel safe where she lives now, I am wasting my time as a Member of Parliament, and the Under-Secretary is wasting his time as a spokesman for law and order—because this is precisely the sort of situation which law and order exists to prevent.

Some of us—and I hope that I can include myself—care a good deal about the future of penal reform. I want to see enlightened policies displayed towards the treatment of delinquents, and particularly juvenile delinquents. I admit to having been greatly influenced by the approach of Lord Butler when he was Home Secretary. I admired his penal philosophy, and in a very small way I have tried to espouse it. It is difficult to exaggerate the harm which a case of this kind does to ideals for enlightened penology. It is just the sort of event which causes the reasonable man and woman to declare that penal reformers are barking mad. It is precisely this sort of action which makes any sort of penal reform and advance so difficult. It is not best met by hushing it up, as could have been done. The proper course is to bring every squalid detail into the open and to see what we can learn from it, and what we ought to repair.

I shall listen with great interest to what the Under-Secretary has to say, but I cannot think that the speech that he will be able to make will adequately repair what has gone wrong. The Home Office has a responsibility here. Can the Home Secretary really be satisfied with present arrangements, in the light of this case? I repeat: the Secretary of State must go over this ground, or get the right kind of body to go over this ground, with singular care. Was it an accident? Was it a chance in a thousand? I very much doubt it. Or does it—and this is much more probable—point to certain weaknesses in our arrangements for cases of this kind?

That is what the Home Secretary must consider very closely, and, if necessary, he must report back to us. Nothing less than this will satisfy me, or the House, I should imagine, and I ask the Under-Secretary, whatever he may say now, to undertake to convey to his right hon. Friend the feelings that I have expressed.

12.18 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne)

This is a very disturbing case, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has pointed out. It raises some very serious questions, and I shall certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the right hon. Gentleman's request that the whole matter should be looked at in the light of what happened here, and to see whether a further inquiry is needed.

I fully understand why the right hon. Gentleman wished to raise this case and the obviously great concern that it has caused to his constituents. I also fully appreciate the appalling position in which the Wills family now find themselves, and I express my sympathy to them and to all the other victims of Moon's offences, and their parents. I am sure Moon's parents themselves would wish to express their distress at the suffering caused by the actions of their son.

This case involves the fundamental question of the balance between the protection of the public and the liberty of the individual. It also involves the relationship between the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend and those of the courts and the medical profession. It does not make the facts of the case any better, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman wil! agree that in this case the Home Secretary had no personal responsibility for anything which happened, because there was at no stage a restriction order under Section 65 of the Mental Health Act, which would have made his discharge or questions of leave or transfer subject to my right hon. Friend's consent——

Mr. Deedes

More's the pity.

Mr. Taverne

Of course, the Home Secretary is concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, with the adequacy of the law dealing with the treatment of mentally disordered offenders and the administrative arrangements. Also, of course, his responsibilities for approved schools and for probation services are also involved in this case.

The right hon. Gentleman raised some questions. The most important point is to turn to the facts and elaborate them in addition to what the right hon. Gentleman said. As he said, in November, 1962, Moon was committed to an approved school from Ashford Juvenile Court. The offence then was one of larceny. He had committed a previous offence of larceny and he had been on probation before this case. He was then just under 14—he is now 17—and there was then no question of any sexual offence. At the beginning of 1963, he went to Court Lees School, at God-stone, and during the first year there made satisfactory, but slow, progress and his conduct gave rise to no special concern.

I think, however, that I should bring the full facts before the House. I should state that, in February and September of 1964, while he was at the approved school, there were two incidents involving young girls which occurred near the school. On the first occasion, in February of 1964, Moon was out walking near the school by himself, which is permitted for boys who have shown good behaviour, and while he was out he tried to kiss two small girls aged 9 and 11. The 11-year-old girl ran to get help, but before she returned Moon had interfered with the younger girl.

The full details of the incident did not come to light straight away, but did so when the girl told her mother and the mother made representations. However, she specifically asked that the matter should be taken no further and the police were not involved. As a punishment, Moon was not allowed out of the school for a subsequent period and his parents were informed of the incident.

The second incident while Moon was at the approved school was one in which he tried to kiss the 6-year-old daughter of a member of the school staff. There was no indecent assault. He was caned and his parents were again told of the incident.

I should mention these cases. They were viewed with concern by the school, but were thought to be isolated instances. They were not thought, in themselves, on the information then available, to be sufficiently serious to justify depriving Moon of normal periods of home leave with his family. Boys and girls in approved schools may be granted up to 33 days home leave which are usually divided up into three separate periods of leave, three separate visits to the home, per year.

The grant of leave is a matter within the discretion of the school managers——

Mr. Deedes

Are we, in fact, dealing with five separate incidents, now—three which I have raised and two which the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned?

Mr. Taverne

That is correct. There are five incidents, although the first two were at that time regarded as isolated ones and one was a very minor one.

I return to the question of leave. This leave is normally granted by the headmaster after he has first made inquiries of the home to see whether it is ready to receive him and to see that the home conditions are satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman may agree that home leave in these cases should not be withheld without very good reasons. It is important that a boy should not be treated in a school in isolation from the home circumstances. It is, after all, a major task of the school to prepare him for his return to his home.

It is something which involves risk. There is always the risk that a boy will commit offences while on leave, but I think that this is a risk which cannot be avoided. Home leave is part of the process of readjustment to ordinary life and the failure to respond to home leave is an indication to the school that further training is required. Managers would not grant a boy home leave if there was any reason to think that he would be a danger to others.

Before the offence against Mr. Wills's daughter, Moon had been granted home leave on seven separate occasions, varying from two weeks to two days at a time and on no occasion had any misconduct by him come to notice——

Mr. Deedes

We are dealing, on the facts, with a mental case. What medical attention was given to this case? It is not simply a question of the boy's record.

Mr. Taverne

I am dealing with Moon's period at the approved school. At that stage there were these two incidents, but he was being given the ordinary course of supervision at an approved school. The question of mental illness, of course, arose later.

The House will, I hope, agree that the managers were justified in allowing Moon home leave in April, 1965. They had no reason to suppose then that he would not behave as well as he had done before on occasions of home leave. It was while he was on home leave in April, 1964 that the offence with Mr. Wills's daughter was committed. He pleaded guilty to attempted rape and asked the court to take into consideration another offence of indecent assault on another 12-year-old girl committed on the same date.

In June, 1965, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, Moon came before the juvenile court. Medical evidence was placed before the court by two doctors, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that he was suffering from mental disorder to such a degree as to warrant his detention in hospital for medical treatment. The court made an order under Section 60 for his detention in hospital.

I should elaborate this a little in view of the right hon. Gentleman's concern that no order was made under Section 65. An order under Section 60 can be made only if two doctors state that a person is suffering from a mental disorder to such a degree that he should be detained in hospital. This by itself would have the effect, as it did in this case, that he is placed in the care of the hospital and not in the care of the Secretary of State. The court could have gone further and made an order under Section 65. That would be entirely a matter for the court on the basis of the evidence before it.

It might, perhaps, be relevant if I read out Section 67, which includes an order to be made under Section 65: If in the case of a person of or over the age of fourteen years who is convicted by a magistrates' court of an offence punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment— (a) the conditions which, under subsection (1) of section 60 of this Act," — that is the section dealing with the evidence of two doctors— are required to be satisfied for the making of a hospital order are satisfied in respect of the offender; but (b) it appears to the court, having regard to the nature of the offence, the antecedents of the offender and the risk of his committing further offence if set at large, that if a hospital order is made an order restricting his discharge should also be made, the court may, instead of making a hospital order or dealing with him in any other manner, commit him in custody to quarter sessions to be dealt with in respect of the offence. It is entirely a matter for the court to decide whether to commit him to quarter sessions for a Section 65 order, which would mean that the Secretary of State would have control over the offender.

The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to comment on this, but it would be improper for me to comment on a decision made by a court in the light of the evidence before it, whether this court or any other. The fact is that the court made the order under Section 60 and not under Section 65. Moon therefore came under the care of Harperbury Hospital.

The next matter which gave rise to the right hon. Gentleman's concern was the fact that he was granted leave and that, during two periods of leave, two further assaults were committed. The hospital was aware of the history of Moon. The school papers about the boy were sent to the hospital and his case was fully discussed by the headmaster of the school with the medical superintendent of the hospital. It was discussed both before and after the court order was made. Both had discussed with the probation officer attached to the court the possibility of his being sent there. I am satisfied that there was no failure of communication between the approved school and the hospital, or between the court and the hospital.

The right hon. Gentleman asked why leave was given. This was entirely a matter for the medical officer in the hospital. In fairness to the medical officer, in whose discretion this matter was, I ought to make two points. First, one of the main principles enunciated by the Royal Commission on Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency was that there should be a move away from institutional care as far as possible and towards community care. If someone is kept away from the community entirely, it is very difficult to bring him back as a normal member of it. Obviously, this principle cannot be applied in every case, because there may be very great risks.

The second point I must make is that in Moon's case the medical officer had to deal with someone whom the court had decided not to subject to a restriction order under Section 65, someone who was detained in hospital under Section 60. He had before him someone who behaved well in the hospital.

Anyway, leave was given. He was sent to the care of his parents at their request and they were, therefore, responsible for his supervision while he was on leave. It was then that two further offences were committed, although the first did not come to light until he admitted it when charged with the second.

I now come to the last stage of this most unfortunate and tragic affair. That is the present position and the decision of the Ashford Magistrates' Court on 17th March this year. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the bench made a probation order for three years, one of the conditions being that he should reside at Darenth Park Hospital for 12 months, which is the maximum period under the Statute. This order on the face of it may seem somewhat surprising and may give rise to some further disquiet. Again, it would be quite wrong for me to comment on the decision of the bench, but I should draw attention to certain points.

In this case, the bench could not make an order under either Section 60 or Section 65, because there was a conflict between the two medical witnesses. One of the doctors whose evidence was before the court stated that this was not a case of mental illness. The court could not make an order under Section 60, because he conditions required by the Mental Health Act—that there should be evidence from two medical practitioners both that he was suffering from mental disorder and that he was suffering from it to such an extent as to warrant hospital detention —were not satisfied.

Secondly, if the bench had committed Moon to quarter sessions, for, say, a sentence of borstal training, he might have been out in any period between six months and two years and it might have been regarded as questionable in the mind of the court how far a borstal sentence would have been a suitable sentence for a case which at any rate was on the borderline of mental illness.

Moon is now at Darenth Park Hospital. He is not allowed out of the hospital and I am sure that the question of home leave is unlikely to be considered at present. Indeed, not only is the hospital in constant touch with the probation officer concerned. who would be consulted, but the magistrates' court which sentenced him has also asked to be informed if any question of leave is contemplated.

There are certain safeguards. If Moon misbehaves in the hospital, this can be regarded as a breach of his probation order and he would come before the court for sentence for the original offence. But there is a further safeguard. Under the terms of the probation order, Moon is required to reside at the hospital only for 12 months, but the doctors at the hospital are bound to consider before his release whether, in the light of his condition, they should recommend that he should be compulsorily detained.

I think that we can all agree, using hindsight, that if certain steps had been taken, or had not been taken, these most unfortunate events might never have happened. But, despite what the right hon. Gentleman invited me to do, there is little point at this stage in trying to apportion blame among the various authorities concerned. Certainly let us look again at the whole question of administration. It is for the courts to decide within the provisions available to them and on the evidence before them how to deal with offenders who appear before them and when offenders are sent to hospitals by a court, when it is not a Section 65 case, it must be left to the responsible medical officer to decide on the appropriate treatment.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the public safety in all cases, even when there is no restriction order under Section 65 and the Home Secretary therefore has no control, must be of paramount importance. But concern for public safety does not necessarily mean the exclusion of the patient from all contact with the outside world. For a number of restricted patients under the control of the Home Secretary there is regular weekend leave and there is day parole to enable them to go to work.

As I have said, keeping the patients in touch with the community is an essential part of the treatment, but public safety should be paramount. Before a patient goes out into the community, whether temporarily or permanently, we must ensure that there will be proper supervision, that there has been proper inquiry into his background and that the risks of his committing further violence or sexual assaults has been fully assessed and been found to be without significance.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that unfortunate results like the tragic consequences of this case do a great deal of harm to an enlightened approach to penal matters, but if these safeguards are properly observed it should be possible to keep this very delicate balance and to combine a progressive system of treatment for the mentally disordered offender with due regard for the safety of the public.