HL Deb 28 February 1961 vol 229 cc13-5

3.4 p.m.

LORD ELTON

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

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as a result of a recent case in which the defendant was acquitted of a charge of murder on the ground that he was asleep, they are considering bringing about a change in the law to make possible a verdict of "guilty but asleep."]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST)

My Lords, from the inquiries which I have been able to make, it would appear that the circumstances of the case to which the noble Lord refers are without precedent. I have no reason to think that this case has demonstrated a need for any change in the law.

LORD ELTON

My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that not very lengthy Answer, may I ask, in the first place, whether he would not agree that a verdict of "Guilty but asleep" would he much nearer to the facts than a verdict of innocence and would also have the advantage that, like a verdict of "Guilty but insane" it would make it possible to detain the convicted person? Then may I ask, as regards to the suggestion that it is not likely that this will be repeated, whether he would not agree that, when a bizarre case of this sort has been widely reported, it is more than likely that it will be either imitated subconsciously and half-wittingly by persons of neurotic temperament, or deliberately simulated by persons desiring a plausible line of defence?

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, with regard to the first part of my friend's supplementary question, it is quite true that there may be a possibility that in future a verdict of "Guilty but asleep" might be considered to be part of a mental disorder, and my right honourable friend is looking into that question carefully. Meanwhile, I can only say to the second part of my noble Lord's supplementary question that, as this is such an extraordinary result of a case—such an extraordinary decision has been made—for the time being my right honourable friend sees no reason to alter the law.

LORD AMWELL

My Lords, if a man is asleep, how can he be guilty? It is a question of terminology, that is all.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, before my noble friend answers that point, may I say that surely the man is not guilty. He was found not guilty in this particular case.

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, what my noble friend Lord Derwent has said is quite right. The point the noble Lord opposite has brought up is the conundrum with which we are faced.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, may I ask whether it is proper for a Minister of the Crown, particularly one from the Home Office, to describe a verdict or decision in a case as being an extraordinary one?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I am sure that all my noble friend meant to say was what he said in his original Answer: that it was without precedent. That is all he said I think in his original Answer. I do not think that in that sense it is improper.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, in the sense that the words were used by the Minister they were improper.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I am perfectly sure that my noble friend did not wish to challenge the verdict of the court in any way.

LORD CHORLEY

Would your Lordships not agree that this was an extraordinary case?

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, that is exactly what I was endeavouring to point out. I am sorry if I used the wrong term.

LORD ELTON

My Lords, it would surely not have been possible for the noble Earl to use a more appropriate term; it was a case out of the ordinary.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he does not agree that Precedent plays a most important part in the law? How is it, then, that his noble friend can dismiss precedent in this way?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I am not sure that I understand this supplementary question; and if I did, I think that I should ask the Lord Chancellor to answer it for me. But the verdict of a jury is not a precedent in the legal sense. What is a precedent in the legal sense is a reasoned decision of a judge. I think that may be the confusion in the noble Lady's mind.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, would the noble Earl give an assurance that, when they are tried at the bar of public opinion for their many lapses, the Government will not put in the plea of "Guilty but asleep"?

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, I can only say that my right honourable friend is not contemplating a change.