§ LORD COLERIDGE,in asking the Lord Chancellor, Whether there would be any objection to direct that in all cases where a previous conviction has to be proved, some person who has had the prisoner actually under his care in gaol should be present to prove it, said, he would mention shortly the circumstances which had induced him to put the Question on the Paper. Last Circuit a man was tried before him for some small offence at Gloucester, and was further indicted for having been previously convicted. On the question arising as to the previous conviction, the prisoner insisted that he had never been convicted before. The prosecution called a member of the Metropolitan Police to prove the prisoner's identity, and he said that he recognized the prisoner as a convicted offender, but admitted that he had only been in his custody for half-an-hour three years ago. He was impressed with the prisoner's honesty with regard to this point, and directed the jury that if the prisoner had been two or three months in a Metropolitan prison, some warder should have been sent to identify him, and he was not found guilty of having been previously convicted. He afterwards sent for a Report to the London prison where the prisoner was said to have been confined, and found that the man whom the policeman swore was the prisoner had different coloured eyes and hair, was two and a-half inches taller than him, and had a mark on the arm which the prisoner did not bear. It was perfectly plain that a mistake had been made, and it was one which might have had very serious consequences for the prisoner. He was informed that a man had been sentenced to 10 years' 1293 penal servitude, just previously, at Gloucester for some small offence, merely because a previous conviction was proved. The same might have happened in the case he tried, had it come before the same Judge. This was an important matter, and he trusted his noble and learned Friend would be able to give a satisfactory assurance with regard to it.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, there could be no doubt that, in the case brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, the prisoner was entitled to his acquittal on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to justify his conviction for having been previously convicted. Speaking generally, in every case of alleged previous conviction, something like adequate proof ought to be given. With reference to the suggestion in the Question, he thought it would be inconvenient to lay down any strict rule in those terms, but he had communicated with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the subject. While, on the one hand, his right hon. Friend was quite prepared to recommend that, whenever application was made, some warder or other person who had had the prisoner in his custody should be sent to identify him, yet, he considered it would be inconvenient and not consistent with the interests of the Public Service to lay down a general rule that some person who had had the prisoner in custody must attend the trial. There were many cases in which some person knew the prisoner, other than a warder, and in those cases it would be inconvenient that a warder should be brought from the gaol when persons more easily accessible were able to prove the previous conviction. His right hon. Friend had every wish to meet the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord in the spirit in which it was made, and would do everything in his power to insure that the proper evidence as to identity of prisoners should be forthcoming.