CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (Hansard, 25 June 1958)

§ EARL HOWE
My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that any adequate grounds exist for reversing the legislation of 1948 which implemented the recommendation of an Interdepartmental Committee in 1938 that corporal punishment should be abolished as a judicial penalty or that any useful purpose would be served by holding a further similar inquiry. In their view the most useful form of inquiry at this stage is an analysis and study of the crimes of violence in order to obtain a clearer idea of the nature and scope of the increase in such crimes recorded in the statistics. The Department of Criminal Science at Cambridge University is working on crimes of violence in the Metropolitan Police District, and we are confident that their report will prove a valuable contribution to the study of the problem.

§ EARL HOWE
My Lords, may I be allowed to ask the noble and learned Viscount how many more women have got to be attacked, how many more "Teddy-boy" outrages have got to take place, before somebody in Cambridge will be convinced that it is about time we did something to restore corporal punishment?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Earl's question is a consideration of what the problem is. I wanted to spare your Lordships figures, but I think I ought to give them in view of the importance of the matter. As I said, legislation was passed in 1948 abolishing flogging. That legislation was based on the conclusions of the Cadogan Committee which reported in 1938 and those conclusions were fully discussed in Parliament. Before 1948, the only offences of importance for which corporal punishment was available for adults were offences under Section 23 (1) of the Larceny Act, 1916ߞthat is, robbery while armed, robbery in company with others, and robbery with violence. The number of offences in this category known to the police decreasedߞI repeat, decreasedߞfrom 1948 to 1955, and in 1956 they were still below the 1948 figure. The 1948 figure was 978 and that in 1956 was 730. That was at a time when other crimes increased.
If it is suggested that flogging should be introduced as a penalty for sexual offences, it should be remembered that corporal punishment has not been available as a penalty for the great majority of offences of this kind since 1861, and that the Inter-departmental Committee reported that all the most experienced witnesses who gave evidence before them agreed in regarding corporal punishment as a specially unsuitable penalty for sexual offences.
With regard to the other point of the noble Earlߞthe suggested reintroduction of birching for juveniles—noble Lords will recollect that the Committee of 1938 based their recommendations against corporal punishment for juveniles on the practice of the more experienced juvenile courts which, by 1938, had abandoned birching because they found it less effective than other methods. They drew a clear distinction between corporal punishment as a judicial penalty and immediate corporal punishment administered in the home or the, school by a person in a direct personal relationship with the child. Since then the range of penalties and remedies other than corporal punishment bas been greatly extended. If, however, noble Lordsߞand this applies to my noble friendߞconsider that there are reasons to depart from the recommendations of the 1938 Committee and the present law, they might care to bring 179 their views to the notice of the Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Ingleby, whose terms of reference cover the powers of the courts in respect of juvenile delinquency. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ingleby, and his colleagues, would be delighted to hear the evidence of the noble Earl.

§ EARL HOWE
My Lords, may I again intrude by asking the noble and learned Viscount whether he will select a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in which the Lord Chief Justice and four other Judges of the High Court said in this House that they considered that corporal punishment should be reintroduced? Would he please see that the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate is at the disposal of Lord Ingleby?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ingleby will consider that. I hope, without due presumption, he will also consider a speech that I made as Home Secretary on a Private Bill in the House of Commons to reintroduce flogging, when I dealt with it from the point of view of the person responsible for law and order in this country.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he is aware that we on this side of the House welcome the steps that have been taken for a proper and scientific examination of statistical records in this matter. We shall await the findings with due interest. We are also greatly obliged for the really steady statistical evidence which the noble and learned Viscount has produced to the House to-day.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I am sure that his views will also be brought to the attention of the appropriate Committee.

LORD SALTOUN
My Lords, may I ask whether the situation has not changed a little since the innocent private citizen has not been allowed to be in a position to defend himself with any weapon at all? It is only the criminal who carries a weapon.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I want to consider that point very 180 carefully. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Saltoun has put it quite accurately with regard to England, although my knowledge of Scottish law is inferior to his. There was the great offence of hamesucken, as he knows, and I should have thought that inability to use any weapon is putting the position rather high. But I should like to consider that matter carefully. It is rather a different point.

LORD SALTOUN
I was referring to the Prevention of Crime Act.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord has in mind, but I myself introduced the Bill which passed through Parliament and made it a criminal offence to be found in possession of an offensive weaponߞthat is, from the standpoint of the criminal. But I should like to consider the matter. I would not assent without grave consideration to the general proposition that it is impossible to use at any rate certain means of defence appropriate to the situation in which the person attacked finds himself.