HOME OFFICE INSTRUCTION ON EXECUTIONS (Hansard, 8 March 1956)

§ VISCOUNT WAVERLEY
My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT)
My Lords, Mr. Arthur Koestler's article in last Sunday's Observer purports to quote a confidential instruction to prison governors about executions which, as quoted, suggests that governors are instructed that they should invariably say, in reference to the manner in which an execution is carried out, that it was carried out expeditiously and without a hitch. Mr. Koestler's quotation omits important parts of the original Home Office instruction and gives an entirely misleading impression of its sense and intention. The passage as a whole reads as follows: No details as to any execution should be given to anyone but the coroner. The reply to any inquiry at the inquest as to the manner in which an execution has been carried out should be confined to as few words as possible, e.g., 'it was carried out expeditiously and there was no hitch'. The words in the instruction, which I will now read, were omitted from Mr. Koestler's quotation; the passage should read: e.g., 'it was carried out expeditiously and there was no hitch' or as the case may be. 220 If there has been any hitch or unusual event the fact must, of course, be stated, and a full explanation given. Mr. Koestler's quotation then continued, correctly: No record should be taken as to the number of seconds, et cetera, and if pressed for details of this kind the governor should say he is not able to give them as he did not time the proceedings, but 'a very short interval elapsed,' or some general expression to the like effect may be used. The quotation then omitted the final sentence of the instruction, which is as follows: If there has been any undue delay it must be so stated and an explanation given. Mr. Koestler also mentions the case of a woman, and I am afraid I must quote, whose insides fell out before she vanished through the trap. This appears from the context to be a reference to the case of Edith Thompson. It is untrue that anything of the kind alleged occurred at the execution of Mrs. Thompson, or of any other woman. Mr. Koestler quotes a speech made by Mr. (now Sir) Beverley Baxter, in 1948, in which Sir Beverley referred to a visit to his office at the Daily Express by two prison warders who had been present at Mrs. Thompson's execution and had told Sir Beverley that she had disintegrated as a human creature on her way to the gallows. My noble friend Lord Waverley may remember that when Sir Beverley Baxter's speech was reported in the Press, one of the only two prison officers who had been present at Mrs. Thompson's execution wrote to the noble Lord to say that the statement that he had called on Sir Beverley was untrue. The prison officer subsequently made a formal statement in which he said, There is no truth in the suggestion that I and the other officer were extremely upset after the execution. We were the only two officers taking part and it is quite untrue that we went to Mr. Beverley Baxter's office after the execution had taken place. Nor is it true that Mrs. Thompson was in a state of collapse at the time. He added that the execution was carried out without a hitch.
I apologise for the length of this answer but the matter seems to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and myself to be of some importance.

§ VISCOUNT WAVERLEY
My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Mancroft has been able to clear these matters up, and I hope that noble Lords will agree with me that it is most deplorable that a controversial case, whatever its intrinsic merits or demerits, should be bolstered up by misrepresentations so gross as those now exposed.

§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD
My Lords, while I fully agree with the observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, as to the objections to using sensational stories for prejudicing a case, am I not right in thinking that charges of this kind were made in 1948? If my information is correct, it was expected then that the Home Office would make an official disclaimer; but they made no such disclaimer. That being so, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, what has happened since then to make the statement now necessary.

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, why an official disclaimer was not made at the time in 1948 I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Viscount without notice. The reason that it has now become necessary is because this legend has recurred, coupled with the statements by Mr. Koestler in his article, which go far further and are of a slightly different nature, though equally serious; and my right honourable friend thought that for the sake of accuracy, the facts ought to be put in their proper perspective and the truth known.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, is it not the fact that these untruths were repeated in the Observer as recently as last week? Having regard to the fact that, as appears from my noble friend's answer, the author of the article there referred to fell far short of the standards of integrity expected of a responsible author, and that the newspaper appears to have fallen far short of the degree of care which is required in the publication of a responsible newspaper, is it not clearly in the public interest that this should be made known? Might it not possibly be a suitable case for the Press Council?

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, I think there is much strength in what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham says. I perhaps ought to say, for the benefit of your Lordships' information, 222 that this article which appeared in the Observer is part of what will eventually be a book by Mr. Koestler, and since it was clearly going to have greater permanence than some of the articles which had appeared previously on this subject, it appeared all the more necessary to get the facts in their right perspective.