EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, I rise to call attention to a charge of disorderly conduct against Arthur Smith, heard at Bow-street on 11th April; and to ask His Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to deal with the serious charge made against Police Constable Timms, 316 D, during the hearing of that case. It appears, from the report of the case in the St. Pancras Chronicle of April 19th, that the man Smith was charged with disorderly conduct by 6 Police Constable Timms, who alleged that I he pushed ladies and gentlemen about at Gower-street station, and generally acted the part of a Hooligan. In the course of the defence the tables were turned by the evidence, and it appeared that Smith was the aggrieved and assaulted party. Smith himself went into the witness box, and the evidence he gave was to the effect that he was about to enter a public convenience in Gower Place, when he saw the policeman inside it drinking beer from a glass. He thereupon laughed, and drew a friend's attention to the constable, who then dropped the glass and came out and knocked him about, making the remark that he would teach him to spy upon the force. He was then taken to the station. At the station he told the inspector the facts, but the inspector refused to listen to them. A young man named Smythe was called and gave evidence, according to the report, with manifest reluctance. He said he would not have given evidence if the solicitor for the defence had not served him with a subpoena. This witness admitted that he had taken the beer to the constable in the convenience at the time mentioned on the night in question. In answer to the magistrate, he said that he and other costermongers were compelled to treat the police, or otherwise it was a case of "Move on" with them, and they would make things nasty. Mr. Timewell, of Gower Street, deposed that on hearing repeated police whistles and seeing people running in the direction of Gower Place, he went out to ascertain what was the matter. He found the defendant held by a policeman against the wall, bleeding from the nose and mouth, saying "he never intended to give the policeman away." Mr. Fenwick, the magistrate, was not satisfied with the evidence, and expressed a wish to see the barman who supplied the beer to Smythe. The barman was called. He admitted that he supplied Smythe with beer in a glass on the night in question, but did not know what became of the glass, which was similar to the broken one produced. The magistrate dismissed the summons, the evidence against the prisoner being most unsatisfactory. The charges were 7 not in any sense proved, but they were made on oath during the hearing of the case, and they amount to an accusation that the constable, having first broken the regulations by drinking beer while on duty, then attempted to cover this breach by knocking about and ultimately taking into custody a member of the public who had detected and might have reported him. The case rests merely on statements made by the witnesses, but they had the effect of satisfying the magistrate that the charge made by the constable could not be substantiated. The statement was also made that costermongers were obliged to treat the police in this way. I am informed that when the witness who saw the occurrence offered to give evidence in favour of the prisoner, he was told by the inspector that if he did not go out of the station he (the inspector) would "hit him in the mouth." This discloses a very serious and regrettable state of things, and I wish to ask the Government whether any investigation is being made into the matter. I am informed that the man Smythe, who gave evidence that he had taken the beer to the constable, has disappeared from the place and cannot be found. The suggestion is that there is a conspiracy on the part of the police to hush this matter up. I have to ask that we may have some assurance that these serious charges will be fully and impartially investigated.
§ LORD BELPERMy Lords, in answer to the Question which the noble Earl has put on the Paper, I have to say that the Home Secretary has made full inquiry, and has received a report from the magistrate who heard the case. I think the House will agree that it would not be desirable that I should follow the noble Lord into the details of the evidence, for it is obvious that this House is not the proper place in which to revise decisions of police magistrates, especially when there is not the slightest suggestion that there has not been a fair hearing. The Home Secretary has received a report from the magistrate who heard the case, and also the notes of the evidence, which he has fully considered. It appears that the magistrate gave a very long and careful hearing to the different witnesses who were called, and that, after 8 hearing everything that could be said on both sides, he came to the conclusion that the testimony was of such a conflicting character, and many of the facts were in such doubt, that he was not justified in binding over the defendant to be of good behaviour. He consequently discharged him. When the defendant was discharged, his counsel immediately applied for a summons against the constable for assault; but the magistrate, for the same reasons as those which led to his previous decision, held that it would not be fair to allow proceedings against the constable. It was then intimated that an endeavour would be made to produce additional evidence, and the magistrate expressed himself perfectly ready to hear any further evidence that might be forthcoming, and carefully consider it. Those are the circumstances of this case, and, without entering at all into the details, I may say that the Home Secretary entirely supports the decision of the Commissioner of Police to follow the same course as the magistrate, and to take no further action unless additional evidence is produced. Of course, if further evidence is produced, then he will have to reconsider the whole case. I do not think I need say anything further except to strongly repudiate the suggestion made by the noble Earl that the police have taken some part in an attempt to hush up the case and conceal, evidence.
EARL RUSSELLDo I understand that no inquiry will be made by the Commissioner of Police into the general charge of drinking on the part of the police while on duty? I mean a disciplinary inquiry.
§ LORD BELPERI have already stated that the Commissioner of Police, following the same course as the magistrate, does not consider there is sufficient evidence at present to justify the holding of an inquiry.