HL Deb 22 October 1952 vol 178 cc837-46

3.14 p.m.

EARL HOWE rose to call attention to the continuation of crimes of violence towards women and other defenceless persons, and to ask whether the existing penalties which the courts have power to inflict in such cases are adequate to protect the public; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in submitting my Motion to you this afternoon I cannot help feeling a great deal of sympathy with Daniel when he entered the lions' den; and when I look round the House and see all the lions waiting for me I hope they will not bite too hard but will content themselves with a few little playful nips. Be that as it may, I cannot claim to have any particular knowledge of the legal side of this question, but I can and do claim to be just an ordinary member of the public—whose views, I think, have been all too little heard at every stage in this controversy. And it is the public, let us remember, who have to bear the brunt of a crime wave, both physically and financially. I am, and have been for a long time, much disturbed by the fact that you can hardly pick up a paper without seeing a report of some case or incidence where one or more gangsters have made an outrageous attack upon some inoffensive and defenceless person—an attack usually accompanied by the use of some weapon or other: a revolver, a cosh, a bicycle chain, or a razor. The majority of the victims, as I have already stated, seem to be quite harmless and inoffensive people and are usually either females or elderly men.

In common, I know, with many others, I have long held the view that this type of case has been showing a marked increase of late, not only in numbers but, what is far worse, in the appalling ferocity of the circumstances of the case. The important figures (I intend to keep off figures as much as I can) appear to be that in 1938—before the war—there were 283,220 indictable offences known to the police, whereas in 1951 the figure was 524,506. And the Chief Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police has told us that in the Metropolitan Police area such offences have gone up by 10,787, or 10.8 per cent. over the year before. The Home Secretary, answering a question in another place, said that during 1951 there were 7,188 offences of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, wounding, indictable assault, robbery or rape known to the police in England and Wales; that 4,274 of these people were convicted at Assizes and quarter sessions; and that 269 were sentenced to preventive detention, imprisonment or corrective training for more than two years. The equivalent figure for 1936 was 2,533 such offences; so that it will be seen that the increase since 1936 has been roughly three times.

Another thing I seem to have noticed in reports of these cases—and it is a most unfortunate feature—is that in many of them juveniles and adolescents are responsible, while the worst of such criminals seem to range in age from about 16 to 30 or 35. When these cases are brought before the courts I have noticed repeated expressions of regret by the magistrates or judges before whom they appear that the only sentence they can now pass is imprisonment in some form and that it cannot be accompanied, as formerly, by a sentence of flogging or whipping. I should like to refresh your Lordships' memory with one or two of these rather important statements. For example Mr. Justice Finnemore at the Old Bailey, the Central Criminal Court, on February 17, 1949, in passing a sentence of three years' penal servitude on a man for robbing a lady of her handbag containing £61 10s., said this: Only a few months ago men could be flogged for this type of offence. The only punishment available to-day, unfortunately, is prison. Mr. Justice Stable, on December 19, at Leeds Assizes, after sentencing four youths—two to five years' imprisonment each and two to Borstal—for rape, in dismissing the jury told them: Perhaps when you go away you will reflect whether in your view the Legislature did a wise or unwise thing when it took away from the judges the power, in a case of this kind, to order corporal punishment? We find so many cases where young men are guilty of this offence and there is no alternative before the judges.

Mr. Justice Streatfeild at Leeds Assizes said as follows: These are two more of those cases of the most shocking and brutal violence which are infesting the country at the present time. I do not know, nor am I particularly concerned, whether statistics of crimes of violence throughout the country have decreased or not since the abolition of corporal punishment in September, 1948, but, as one of those who has perhaps only too much experience of the administration of the criminal law, I do know that the degree of violence in these cases, whether against women or men, old or young, is more brutal and cruel now than it ever was. In such circumstances it is no comfort to the wounded and terrified victims of the most brutal and savage assaults to be told that there are fewer crimes of this character than there used to be. I can only reiterate the words of the Lord Chief Justice regretting that such crimes can no longer be punished in the only way that may act as a real deterrent to those people who do not scruple to inflict upon others suffering, which by the law as it is at present they cannot be made to suffer themselves. Facts speak louder than statistics, and the public should awaken to these grave menaces to society. Then Mr. Justice Lynskey, addressing the Hampshire magistrates at Winchester, was reported as saying that the cat, birch and whipping had all been abolished except in very exceptional cases. In spite of that, there were crimes of violence and of murder—even among young people between fifteen and twenty-one. But the courts had to continue to do their best to carry on the policy of the Legislature, whether one agreed with it or disagreed with it. Sir Victor Warren, the Lord Provost of Glasgow, said in May of this year: If hooliganism is to be stopped, the strap or the cane must be used.… I will weary your Lordships with only one more of these quotations. Mr. Liddington presiding at the Dartford juvenile court, in sentencing a fifteen-year-old boy for assaulting a girl of nine, said this: You have committed an abominable offence. There's a lot to be said for the old law of whipping for young fellows like you. Unfortunately, the law says we cannot punish you like that. This situation has seemed to me to indicate that the powers of the law, in the hands of those charged with its administration, are really inadequate to deal with the gravest type of case. Of course, I am only too well aware that the whole of this subject is a matter of the most strenuous and violent controversy, and that the strongest and most sincere views are held on both sides of the question—I quite realise all that. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that, whatever opinion may be held, everyone must view with the gravest concern the existence of this crime wave. It seems to me, as an ordinary member of the public, that it is largely a question of theory versus realism and, if I may say so without offence, common sense. One opinion seems to be that you can reform the gangster by being relatively lenient and sympathetic to him, sentencing him to a term of imprisonment and putting him in a place of detention, and at the same time protecting him from any hint of the violence and the brutality and the suffering—never let us forget the suffering—which he has not scrupled to inflict upon his victims. In fact, it has often seemed to me that there is a good deal more consideration for the gangster than there is for his victim. The other view, the view which I personally share, is that the gangster is a bully; that he looks upon any sign of leniency as a sign of weakness, and will never be able to take his place in society until he has had a dose of his own medicine.

The whole of this question is hedged around with figures, with statistics. I have endeavoured to keep clear of statistics, for they are often quoted and are not always up-to-date. In no case do these statistics give any inkling of the degree of violence or the appalling circumstances of the crime. It is all very well for people to oppose corporal punishment on theoretical grounds, but I assert that to-day women and other defenceless persons are less secure than they have been in this country for at least two generations. I am going to weary your Lordships, I am afraid, by giving your Lordships two or three sample cases of the sort of thing about which I am talking—I do so with an object. Here, for instance, is a case of an elderly garage proprietor, a Mr. William Brown, living out in the country, a long way away from the nearest habitation, living in his petrol station, at a place called Pillerton Priors—some of your Lordships may know it. He was aged seventy-four, and he was in bed. According to a newspaper report of prosecuting counsels' statement, this man was pulled out of bed, punched, thrashed with a rubber cosh and kicked while he lay on the floor. Then, in front of his wife, he was tied to the bedposts with a clothes line. The old couple wore terrified and it was only with some difficulty that Mrs. Brown later released her husband. She herself was not hurt. One of the two men concerned in the incident was the son of a former policeman. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Hallett, and this is what he said: Since 1948 Parliament has thought it right that there should be no punishment by flogging. There are those who think these cases would be less frequent if it were permitted still. The only alternative is to keep those responsible in custody for long periods at the public's expense.

I now give your Lordships another case, which I think is one of the worst I have ever read. Some of your Lordships will probably remember it. It was reported in one or two of the papers in considerable detail. This was the case of four young men, two aged seventeen, one aged eighteen and one aged twenty-one. They were concerned in two cases, one after another. The first attack was upon a lady, a Miss Metcalfe, who was quite alone, and in bed at the time. It occurred on March 30 of this year. Two of the men carried coshes, and one had an air pistol. They demanded money. Two of them stood on either side of the bed and the other two at the foot of the bed. Whitehead (one of the men), according to prosecuting counsel at the trial, Mr. Booth pointed the pistol at Miss Metcalfe and Berry"— another of the accused— kept hitting her with the cosh. Eventually she got out of bed, went for her purse and handed to Whitehead all the money in it, which amounted to £1 and some silver. 'This did not satisfy them,' continued Mr. Booth, and they demanded jewellery and more money. They threatened to kill her. She promised them more money if they would not kill her. She offered £10. They demanded £100. They eventually agreed to £40, and it was arranged that Miss Metcalfe should meet them the following day and hand over this sum. 'They warned her that if she told the police they would visit her again and tear her to pieces. 'After they left the bedroom' said Mr. Booth, they were still not satisfied, and stole property and money from the house. 'Miss Metcalfe was so terrified that the next day she drew £40 from her bank and went to the appointed place where she met White-head and Forrest to whom she handed over the money. 'Miss Metcalfe did not inform the police because she was terrified they would carry out their threat to visit her again,' Mr. Booth added. My Lords, that lady's age was 79. These men went on to break into an hotel, where fortunately they were apprehended by the manager, his wife and a neighbour, and then arrested by the police. Mr. Justice Oliver at Lancaster Assizes said at the close of the case for the prosecution: I cannot help feeling that the opponents of flogging and whipping should have been here to hear it.

There is another case that I should like to tell your Lordships about. This concerned a young woman who one morning, in daylight, was walking in Birmingham when the accused, a fellow by the name of Pryce, came up behind her and placed his arm round her throat. The newspaper report of the case states: He punched her on the head, face and jaw, breaking one of her earrings. There was a violent struggle, during which Miss Hodson fell, 'kicking for all she was worth,' and was improperly assaulted. She put up a magnificent struggle … and it may be that one of her blows had a telling effect, because Pryce suddenly loosed her. She started to get up, but he went for her again and punched her in the face. She went on screaming, and suddenly he left her. A witness, a Mr. Coote, who was near at the time, saw this fellow leave the place and then saw Miss Hodson staggering out. The report continues: Her eyes were closed and her arms outstretched like those of a blind person. Her face was streaming with blood and she was crying out for help. Mr. Coote had described her as 'one of the most ghastly sights he had ever seen.'

My Lords, I suppose I could go on for several hours reading out cases of this sort, but I do not want to weary your Lordships; you are all too well aware of them already. It is all very well for people to argue against the resumption of flogging and that sort of thing upon purely theoretical grounds. A number of your Lordships are going to take part in this debate to-day, and many of you will not agree with me but will hold the opposite view. I would ask those noble Lords: What would you say if the old lady of 79 had been one of your nearest and dearest? What would any noble Lord say if the girl who one morning in Birmingham was found in that deplorable condition had been his daughter?

What would you say if your nearest and dearest had been beaten up, assaulted, robbed, maimed, scarred for life, and left a bleeding, nervous wreck? Would you really think (and I hope some of your Lordships who are going to speak will tell the House), that imprisonment alone is enough? It seems to me that you ought to think very carefully before you answer that question.

The cases that I have endeavoured to submit to you strike me as most appalling. Is it really enough to sentence a fellow to a term of imprisonment, to Borstal detention, to a stay in a remand home, or an approved school? It seems to me that there is only one answer. We are often told that flogging is no deterrent. But it was very carefully retained, as your Lordships know, in connection with prison officers, presumably to assist in their protection. Why do you deny the same protection to ordinary members of the public? I cannot understand it. It does not make sense to me. Even if flogging failed to deter a gangster, it seems to me that it might have a very powerful effect upon the potential offender. Professor Webster of the Home Office, a professor of forensic science, a short time ago (I think at the beginning of September), addressed a meeting of probation officers at Ashridge, where he showed slides of people mutilated by brutal attacks. This is what he said: Flogging can only be inflicted on people who attack a warder who is paid to take the risk. But a woman can be beaten up, butchered, and rendered a cripple for the rest of her life, and all the man will get is a term of imprisonment. I think that is not an adequate punishment at all. Those are the words of an official of the Home Office.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

What official is that?

EARL HOWE

He is a professor of forensic science.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

He is not an official of the Home Office.

EARL HOWE

Yes, he is. I believe he is very well known, too. He is a Home Office expert in forensic science. We are told that if you flog a man you make him a martyr and can never hope to reform him. Flogging was abolished in 1948, and I should like to know whether anybody can tell us what symptoms of reform it has been possible to detect in gangsters since that date. Are they less brutal, less ruthless? In fact, are the theorists right as against those who take the opposite view? We are often told that it was a great experiment, and that the experiment has not proceeded far enough. I should like to ask those who take that view: How far have we to go? How far do they suggest we should go? How many women have to be attacked and assaulted in circumstances of the utmost brutality before we come to the conclusion of this experiment and they are once again given the protection to which I think everyone is entitled? If we do not give that protection, do we not run a risk that the public will say, "If the law will not look after us, we will look after ourselves." I am not an expert in lynch law, and I do not want to see the public going about arming themselves with weapons; but if they cannot be protected, I think that is what we shall eventually come to.

We are told that our prisons are overcrowded. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor whether he can tell us the exact position with regard to prisons? There is a Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, which will be dealt with later on, but perhaps we could be told whether our prisons are overcrowded, and what is the degree of overcrowding. But if I am right in suggesting that not only our prisons, but our Borstal institutions, our remand homes and our approved schools are hopelessly overcrowded, are we not in danger of turning all those places, which to a certain extent should be penal establishments, into a species of club where the inmates can compare notes for the improvement of their technique in future. Is it not possible that severe and just treatment, combined with common sense, might do a good deal more to reduce our prison population?

A short time ago, there was reported to have taken place at Guildhall a meeting of the Magistrates' Association, and the headline in The Times was "Opposition to Whipping. Reintroduction rejected." I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood is, or was, chairman of the Council, and I also understand that the voting on this occasion was 166 for flogging and 219 against, or 385 in all. I should be very grateful if the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, could give us an idea of the total membership of the Magistrates' Association. If he could do that, I think we should have a better chance of appraising the result of the voting at that meeting. I always understood that the membership of the Magistrates' Association was very large indeed, running into several thousands. If that is so, and if they wanted to arrive at the real feeling of the Association on so important a question, might it not have been better to have circularised the members and asked them to indicate by a vote one way or the other?

On the same occasion, according to reports appearing in the Press, Lord Templewood advocated better prisons, more new prisons, and more prison officers. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he could give us, when he comes to speak, an idea how long he thinks it will be before we can get the number of prisons that he thinks would be necessary, how many would be required, how much they would cost, and what we can possibly do about getting sufficient staff to man them. As understand—and I think Lord Temple-wood himself said so—the existing staff is very much under strength. Lord Templewood went on to advocate the provision of more police. We know this need very well, for Parliament and other authorities, including the Home Office, have been much exercised in their minds with regard to the strength of the police. I think it was again Lord Templewood who told the Magistrates' Association that the Metropolitan Police are 20 per cent. under strength, and the provincial police forces are 12 per cent. under strength.

We do know that certainty of arrest is most important and that it would do much to help. But the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in his Report for 1951, having remarked that since September there has been a small increase in strength each week, then went on to say: At our present rate of progress it will take over ten years to reach our pre-war establishment, which is clearly inadequate for present needs. So it seems to me that Lord Templewood, in asking for more prisons, more policemen and more prison officers, was, if he will forgive my saying so, almost crying for the moon. It does not seem that there is the slightest chance of our being able to do anything substantial in this matter for at any rate a very long time. That being so, we cannot hope for anything much more than very gradual improvement in that direction. Meanwhile, it is obvious that the task of the police is going to be infinitely more difficult, and the chance for gangsters to evade arrest is going to be materially better than it should be.

In my view it is of vital importance to ensure that punishment is adequate for the protection of the public and that it really "fits the crime" without any question. When a weapon of any sort is used and the gangster is convicted he should be treated in the only way that he understands. I believe it is only in that way that he himself is going to have a chance—by realising that he will be treated with the utmost severity of the law if convicted, rather than as if he were an interesting psychological specimen. I am sure that would be calculated to do a lot to alter him. I consider that the adoption of this attitude is the only way in which the public can be made to feel that they are being given the protection to which they are entitled, and the only way in which they will feel that justice has been done. It may also do something. I submit, to reassure those who are responsible for the administration of the law and who are trying to grapple with the crime wave that they are being adequately supported in their efforts. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Forward to