HL Deb 07 May 1963 vol 249 cc683-99

10.37 p.m.

LORD STONHAM rose to call attention to the Petition of Kenneth Edward Holmes ordered to lie on the Table on March 7 last and to ask Her Majesty's Government—

  1. (1) whether they will make available for inspection the results of the previous medical examinations of Mr. Holmes;
  2. (2) whether they will authorise an independent medical examination of Mr. Holmes;
  3. (3) whether they will now release Mr. Holmes.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, even though the hour is late and we have had a long day, I am raising this Question tonight, first to ask justice for a criminal and, second, to draw attention to the much wider implications of the case, because, as I will show, the rights of the subject and civil liberties have been withheld in a manner which has shocked members of the legal profession who have knowledge of this case.

The man concerned is Kenneth Holmes, now aged 40, who for the last eight years of his life has been a prisoner at Dartmoor. When he was thirteen he was convicted of shopbreaking and arson and sent to an approved school. At the age of 16 he was again sent to an approved school on conviction for attempted shop-breaking and malicious wounding. In July, 1941, he enlisted in the Royal Air Force and was called up in April, 1942. He was discharged in July, 1945, and I have his discharge certificate here. It records that his conduct on discharge was "good" and the top right-hand corner of the discharge is still attached to it. It is only cut off if an airman is discharged with a bad character. But most important, however, is the statement on the certificate This airman has been accepted for air crew and has been awaiting training as an air gunner. I would mention that this is important because if there had been anything psychologically wrong he would not have been accepted as air crew because the medical conditions for acceptance are extremely stringent.

In 1947 this man was convicted of shopbreaking and sentenced to four years' imprisonment, but, at the same time, he was found guilty but insane of arson and sent to Broadmoor. Two years later he was released and the remainder of his sentence was remitted; and I submit that he would not have been so released if there had been any doubt about his mental condition. During the next six years he was employed by, and eventually obtained a controlling interest in, a firm of surgical instrument makers and was mainly responsible for the direction of the company. He employed eighteen people and had a personal income of some £2,000 a year. During this period he married.

However, in February, 1955, he was convicted of the rape of an 11-year-old girl and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, in my view a proper, though perhaps severe, sentence for an abominable crime. I should, however, say that Holmes has persistently denied that he was guilty as charged and during the eight years he has tried by every possible means to obtain evidence which he claims will establish his innocence. These efforts have been just as persistently frustrated by the Home Office. It is, however, essential to record that Mr. Justice Byrne, after reading the report by the Leeds Prison Medical Officer stated that Holmes had—and I quote: no history of any recurrence of mental trouble since he left prison in 1949 and that in the doctor's opinion he was of sound mind and fully responsible for his actions. This was in February, 1955. No evidence to the contrary has ever been given, and the Prison Commissioners obviously have no doubt of his sanity, because he was sent to Dartmoor and has remained there ever since.

In 1957 my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede, a former Home Secretary, who took up the case, was informed in writing by the Home Secretary that there was no question but that Holmes was sane, and I myself was given a similar Answer when I raised the matter in 1958. Holmes was refused leave to appeal against conviction but was granted leave to appeal against sentence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, then Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment, referred to the conviction for malicious wounding when Holmes was a boy of 16 and the conviction in 1947 when he was found insane and sent to Broadmoor. Lord Goddard declared, despite the evidence to the contrary given at Holmes' trial, that—and I quote: he must be to some degree mentally unstable and is a deadly menace". He altered the sentence of ten years to one which left it entirely in the discretion of the Home Secretary when the man is fit to be released,"— in other words a life sentence. The noble Lord added: If he "— that is Holmes— is found to be insane he will go back to Broadmoor. He was not so found and did not go to Broadmoor.

In March, 1955, a month after he was convicted, the Prison Commissioners refused to allow Holmes to sign cheques, as he was entitled to do under Prison Rule 380. This caused him to be sued in a civil suit, and the writ against him was received by the Prison Governor in June, 1955. But the writ was withheld and he was refused permission even to consult a solicitor until November, 1955, after he had complained to the board of visitors. As a result of this, the man lost his business and his assets and, of course was ruined, quite unnecessarily. He has persistently tried to obtain the permission of the Home Secretary to sue the Prison Commissioners for their wrongful action, but he has just as persistently been refused permission by the Home Office. I would mention, in order that your Lordships may not think these actions might be frivolous or vexatious, that he has since in prison successfully sued his bank and recovered £500.

For the last five years I have persistently pursued this man's case with successive Secretaries and Under-Secretaries of State at the Home Office. I suppose that, together, he and I, and his solicitors, have exchanged about one million words, and there have been numerous letters to the Home Office and a number of interviews with Ministers. In one of those Mr. Dennis Vosper, then Under-Secretary of State, suggested to me there should be a special medical examination to see if this man needed, and would benefit from, a course of psychiatric treatment; and to this I naturally readily assented. There was a medical examination but no treatment, for the very sound reason that the doctors decided that none was needed. The prison doctor, Dr. Lloyd, certified that no treatment was needed and that the man was not insane. In fact since 1955 the Home Office has received a proliferation of medical reports "which they flatly refuse to produce." But I understand that they are conclusive in affirming, confirming and reaffirming that this man does not require treatment for any form of mental disorder.

My own view, of course, was that the Home Secretary would decide to exercise his discretion and release the man in October, 1961, some 18 months ago, when he had served six years and eight months in prison, which, with remission, would have been equal to the original 10 years' sentence. I was supported in this view by the fact that in July, August and September, 1960, Holmes was temporarily released on parole for visits to his family, to his father in Leeds, who was then seriously ill. This man was then completely at liberty, under no sort of supervision, and I submit that the Home Office would not have allowed him such freedom if they had thought he was a danger to society. Indeed, they have refused to allow him further visits on parole to his family only since I have pointed to this anomaly and pressed for the production of the medical reports as a preliminary to the man's release.

Failing any kind of success in my attempt to get a date set for his release, Holmes employed a solicitor to act for him. I hope that the solicitor will not mind my saying that he is an ordinary, efficient West country solicitor, with a general practice, to whom his experiences with the Home Office in acting for Holmes have been a major shock. And in order that I may not be accused of bias or lack of restraint in presenting this case, I will from now on use the solicitor's own words, and the replies from the Home Office, in telling the remainder of the story.

On September 4 last year the solicitor wrote to the Under-Secretary of State recounting the facts that I have already related, and adding these points—I quote: In 1960, Mr. Holmes applied for a writ of habeas corpus and Lord Justice Parker took the view that the Court, on a writ of habeas corpus, was not concerned with the refusal of the Home Secretary to release the man. The question of whether or not Mr. Holmes was mentally unstable was indeed a matter for the decision of the Home Secretary. Mr. Holmes has applied to the Prison Commissioners for permission to institute proceedings for mandamus and certiorari, both of which have been refused. It would seem to me that Mr. Holmes' sentence is one which is far too severe and that the Court of Appeal were misguided in taking the view that he was mentally unstable, especially as never before had he committed any sort of sexual offence. Mr. Holmes seems to have exhausted every avenue for getting his case reviewed and, indeed, the refusal to allow him to issue a writ of mandamus and certiorari is one which has prevented him from doing any more. The only avenue now open to him would seem to be to address a Petition to both Houses of Parliament asking that he be released. The solicitor went on, writing to the Home Secretary: I would therefore ask you to state

  1. (a) The reason why you refused to release Mr. Holmes.
  2. (b) Bearing in mind that the Judge's reason for altering his sentence was that they considered him mentally unstable, have you any medical evidence of any sort which would justify you in coming to the conclusion that the Judges were correct?
  3. (c) Is it true that Dr. Lloyd has certified that this man is sane, and needs no treatment? If so, how can his release be denied to him, as he has already served more than his original sentence?
  4. (d) Are you prepared to state any date on which you will release Mr. Holmes?"

On October 8 the reply from the Home Office said that the case would continue to be kept under regular view, but that the time had not come when the Secretary of State was justified in fixing a date for Holmes's release. They added: The case is not one in which psychotherapy or any other form of medical treatment would be likely to be of benefit at the present time."— That was two years after the prison doctor had said that none was needed— The Secretary of State is not prepared to agree for you to arrange to have Holmes examined by a specialist outside the Prison Service". Finally, referring to the request for facilities for visits by the solicitor far preparing the petition to Parliament, the letter continued: The Secretary of State finds no reason to direct that Holmes should be granted special facilities in the way of visits and correspondence in this matter. To this the solicitor replied: I must protest at your refusal to allow this man to be independently examined, and I must ask you for your reason for this. Please let me have it. In my submission, as a British citizen Holmes has a right to be told why you are doing so and also to receive from you details of the disease or ailment from which you allege he is suffering and which in your opinion is so serious as to warrant your depriving him of his liberty. I must also protest at your insistence that my visits to the prison should come out of Mr. Holmes's normal quota allowed to him. It amounts to this. My visits are being restricted, and further Mr. Holmes' correspondence with me is also being restricted. You must realise that this is hampering me in my duty to my client, and I would like to know your reason for this decision. Also it has taken you over one month to deal with this most serious matter during which time this man has been kept in prison.

On October 22 the Secretary of State agreed to grant reasonable facilities to enable Holmes to provide such information as his solicitor required in preparation of the Petition. On February 28 the Petition was sent to me, and the Home Secretary was informed accordingly. At the same time the solicitor said this to the Home Secretary: In view, however, of your refusal to allow my client to be independently examined, I must now ask you to make available to me, as Mr. Holmes' legal adviser, and also to Lord Stonham, who is presenting the Petition, the medical records of Mr. Holmes. I refer to the records in general, and, in particular, to one dated October 31, 1962, and a further report dated January 22, 1963. I understand that these reports were made by the Medical Officer of Dartmoor Prison, and that you have been supplied with copies thereof. It seems to me that if you are refusing to allow this man his liberty on the grounds that he is suffering mental abnormality, and you are at the same time refusing to allow an independent doctor to examine him, then in common courtesy to him it is only right that he should have access to the medical records which are presumably a basis of your refusal to release him. I shall, of course, be prepared to pay your charges for supplying me with copies of all the relevant documents. On the same day the solicitor informed me that he had seen Holmes in prison and that the medical reports had been read to him by the Medical Officer of Dartmoor Prison. One of these reports, dated October 31, 1962, stated that it was quite improbable that Mr. Holmes would ever be convicted of a similar offence again, and when Mr. Holmes was again examined on January 22 this year the medical report confirmed that there was no abnormality, and again reiterated that it was quite improbable that he would repeat his offence.

On March 4 the solicitor wrote to the Prison Commissioners saying that he had seen Holmes who had mentioned that he had petitioned for permission to institute a civil action against the Prison Commissioners for damages. The solicitor did not go into detail because he had authority only to see Holmes in connection with his Petition, but he gathered that it arose from the Prison Commissioners' refusal to allow him to defend an action which was taken against him while he was in prison, as a result of which his business was forfeited. In asking the Commissioners to grant him permission to see Mr. Holmes, so that he could advise him as to his legal rights in connection therewith, the solicitor also referred to the need for an early reply as the time for commencing proceedings might soon be Statute-barred—which of course is important to-him.

On March 22 the solicitor was informed that the Secretary of State was not prepared to grant Holmes facilities to institute legal proceedings against the Prison Commissioners, and he therefore saw no reason to allow Holmes to obtain legal advice to that end. He would therefore be obliged if the solicitor would be good enough to continue to regard discussion of the subject as outside the purpose of the visits—indeed, the solicitor has to sign an undertaking every time he goes to the prison that he will discuss only the matter for which he has been granted permission to visit Holmes. He concludes his letter to me with these words: You will see from the reply of 22nd March, 1963, sent herewith that the Home Office refuses to allow this man even to have legal advice upon the matter, which again I think is a monstrous thing. My Lords, so do I. In a later letter the solicitor says: I may say that having had this experience myself it makes me wonder how many more persons are in prison in this country under similar circumstances. Mr. Holmes happens to be a man of sufficient intelligence and education to be able to take matters up and fight for his own liberty, but what would happen in a case where a man had by means of lack of education or ability been in a similar position I simply shudder to think."— And I repeat, again, that the writer of this letter is a normal run-of-the-mill West Country solicitor.— Mr. Holmes has been refused permission to consult me concerning his civil rights against the Prison Commissioners who of course have prevented him from defending actions, which necessitated the liquidation of his company and as a result of which he has lost both his livelihood and a considerable amount of money. Naturally when Mr. Holmes is released he will be coming to see me, and maybe the Prison Commissioners will hear even more about this matter.

On April 4 the solicitor wrote to the Home Secretary just once more, and said: I am at a loss to understand your attitude in this matter, because, as I understand it, you are detaining this man in custody and saying in fact that he is not fit to be released into the world. You base your refusal to allow him his liberty upon his medical condition. You refuse to allow his medical records to be seen by his legal representative, and therefore the correctness or otherwise of your decision cannot be challenged from the medical record. On the other hand, when a request is made that you permit this man to be examined by independent specialists, so that the matter can be looked into, you again refuse to let anyone except the prison medical officers examine this man. You will doubtless appreciate that the rights of the subject and civil liberties are involved in this case, and it seems quite wrong that you should have the power to detain this man and to refuse to allow anyone to check up on his condition whatsoever. It is even more surprising to note from the correspondence that although you try and justify your refusal to allow him his liberty on medical grounds, you cannot name any complaint from which he is suffering and you say that he does not want any treatment of any sort.

Meanwhile, on March 7, I presented the Petition in your Lordships' House. It set out all the facts of this man's criminal career and sentence, and asked Her Majesty's Government (1) Whether they will make available for inspection the results of the previous medical examinations of Mr. Holmes; (2) Whether they will authorise an independent medical examination; and (3) Whether they will now release him. Five days after the presentation of my Petition in your Lordships' House, Mr. Brooke wrote to my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede with reference to Holmes, and said: I am afraid that I am not yet prepared to fix a date for his release from prison on licence. Ten days later, however, having presumably meanwhile studied the Petition, and having received my letter saying that I intended to raise the matter in your Lordships' House, the Home Secretary wrote to me saying: As it happens, Holmes' Petition has been presented at a time when I already had his case under review. He suggested that I might care to defer my action in the matter, because he expected to reach a decision one way or the other quite soon. To this naturally I readily consented, and, on April 25, Mr. Brooke informed me that he had decided that, subject to his continued good conduct in prison, and to satisfactory arrangements for his resettlement, Holmes will be released on licence when he has been detained for nine years; that is, on February 13, 1964. My Lords, that would be the equivalent of a sentence of 13½ years—and it is not good enough.

So I renewed my previous appeal for the production of the medical certificates or for permission to have an independent medical examination, but this morning I received another letter from the Home Secretary again confirming his refusal to allow me to see the medical report on Holmes or to have him examined independently. From these refusals I submit that only one conclusion can be drawn—namely, that the Home Secretary is aware, and has always been aware, that this man is not insane, that he does not need medical treatment and that he is not a danger to society. The refusal to agree to either of the first two courses set out in the Petition is, in my view, unconscionable and indefensible, and is a denial of the basic elements of British justice. If the Home Secretary can forecast that this man will be fit to be released next February, he must know he is fit to be released now. Conversely, if he is a danger to the public now, what, I ask, makes the Home Secretary think that, without any sort of treatment, he will cease to be a danger in February, 1964?

My Lords, if this man committed that abominable crime he has been punished for it, and punished far more than the learned Judge thought was necessary when he passed the original and severe sentence of ten years. At Dartmoor, this man is a "trusty". He can go where he likes; and, despite his unyielding demeanour and his rather sardonic humour, he is a respected person in the prison. He wrote to me the other day in these words: I enclose the letter I received from my mother this week. My dogs have died, my little daughter is ill"— he has scarcely seen her; she is eight years old— my father is bedridden. My mother is an old-age pensioner now compelled to work merely to exist. All my applications to be allowed home leave or extended parole are refused. While the Home Office pundits are pondering the signs and portents of my intractability, it has not yet penetrated their official intelligence that my hostility is reasonably derived from the oppressive manner in which all the might of their combined authority has been and is being applied to cause the greatest possible damage to my personal and domestic and business life and to affect my family to such an extent. I am refused employment under the hostel scheme and refused my entitlement to be released.

In my submission, my Lords, the facts indicate that this man is sane, that he is not a menace to society, and that be has been punished enough. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to say that the Home Secretary must produce the medical reports or, if he will not, then I ask you in common justice to say that this man must be released immediately.

11.4 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has for a long time taken a close and continuing interest in this case; and it is, likewise, a case which has for long been the subject of the most attentive consideration by my right honourable friend and his predecessors. There are at present, my Lords, nearly 300 persons serving sentences of life imprisonment in England and Wales. All these cases—I repeat, all of them—are kept under the most careful and continuing review. Having read the papers (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say "some of the papers," since the file on this case is enormous), including the voluminous correspondence between my Department and the noble Lord, I should like personally to vouch for the deep seriousness with which this case, like others of its sort but this case particularly, has always been dealt with in my Department.

I do not think I need go back over the life history of Holmes. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has given the facts very fully. As for the case: he was tried and convicted at York Assizes in February, 1955, on charges of rape and indecent assault. I would add only one fact, and that was that his wife, Mrs. Holmes, was convicted of aiding and abetting rape and was sentenced at that time to eighteen months imprisonment. But I do not wish to enlarge on the details of what, by all consent, was an unpleasing case. So far as the question of appeal was concerned, I would merely remind noble Lords that in giving judgment the then Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, said that the Court had come to the conclusion that it was their duty—and I quote his words: …to pass a sentence that will leave it entirely in the hands of the Home Secretary as to when the man is fit to be released.

As the noble Lord has mentioned (and although I think that in his mention of it there was an implication that my right honourable friend may have been influenced by the Petition which was before your Lordships House in this matter I do not want to follow the noble Lord down that avenue, except to say that this is not so), my right honourable friend already had this case under review at the time of the noble Lord's latest representations. In the light of the further review, and again after very careful consideration of all the circumstances of this extremely difficult case, my right honourable friend decided—and so informed the noble Lord, as he has informed us—that, subject to Holmes's continued good conduct in prison and satisfactory arrangements for his resettlement on release, he would be released on licence on February 13 next year. He will then have served nine years of the sentence of life imprisonment which the Court of Criminal Appeal substituted for the sentence of ten years imprisonment which was passed on him by the trial judge.

Before turning to the three specific questions which the noble Lord has asked me in his Question, I feel, in view of what he has said, that I should comment (and I will do so as briefly as I can) on one or two of the ether matters which he has raised. I say that I will comment briefly, but that is not because of the lateness of the hour—because this is a very serious case, and I am uninfluenced by the lateness of the hour in this respect. The noble Lord has alluded to Holmes's persistent claim—and he has persistently claimed this—that he was wrongfully convicted of this terrible crime. All I would say is that his representations to this effect have been very carefully considered and a full inquiry was made into them. At no time, however, have any grounds emerged which would justify my right honourable friend or his predecessors in recommending any interference with that conviction. I would remind noble Lords that it is not, and, in my view, cannot be the practice of the Home Secretary, or of any Home Secretary to attempt to re-try cases. The exercise of the Prerogative or the reference to the Court of Criminal Appeal is, of course, contemplated only where there comes to notice some new evidence which was not available at the time of the trial.

The noble Lord has also claimed that there has been unwarranted interference with Holmes's communications with his solicitors. This, of course, was not one of the specific points which he mention in his Question. I wish in general to repudiate the suggestion that there has been any unwarranted interference of any sort; but I should like, if I may, to have a chance of looking at these detailed allegations which the noble Lord has made, and I will write to him about them and, if necessary, inform the House. However, I certainly wish here and now to repudiate his general contention.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me, I quoted the actual letter from the Home Office denying facilities. That decision was later reversed and I also quoted that.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, what I was repudiating was the claim that this action was unwarranted, but, as I say, I will look into the details. As I have said, my right honourable friend has come to the conclusion, subject to certain conditions, that Holmes may be released on licence on February 13, 1964. However, I understand that the noble Lord is still dissatisfied with the way in which the case has been decided and with my right honourable friend's refusal to make available medical reports on Holmes, or to authorise an independent medical examination.

As I understand the noble Lord's argument—he will correct me if I am wrong—it is as follows. The Court of Criminal Appeal, in substituting a life—that is, an indeterminate—sentence for the ten-year sentence previously passed on Holmes had in mind, among other things, that Holmes had recently been for a time in Broadmoor; and it follows from this and from other aspects of the course of judgment—in the noble Lord's view—that the Home Secretary, in deciding on the period of Holmes's detention, should be guided primarily, if not solely, by medical considerations. That is to say, if there were signs of mental abnormality, Holmes should be given appropriate treatment; but if there were no such signs, there could be no real justification for detaining him. It is against this background, as I understand it, that the noble Lord wishes to have the medical reports already made on Holmes produced, or to secure, subject to and dependent upon the evidence of such reports or an independent investigation, that Holmes should be immediately released.

LORD STONHAM

Or treated.

EARL JELLICOE

Yes, my Lords, or treated. I would say straight away that my right honourable friend is unable to accept this view of the case. One can certainly conceive circumstances where the question of release of a prisoner who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment may depend mainly, if not solely, on medical considerations. But this is not such a case. As my right honourable friend's predecessor informed the noble Lord, the conclusion which he, Mr. Butler, reached, after full consideration of the medical reports, was that Holmes's case was not one calling for any special form of medical treatment. My right honourable friend has found no reason to dissent from this conclusion. The case is therefore one, in my right honourable friend's view, which must be determined on other grounds and I shall refer in a moment or two to the general considerations which my right honourable friend takes into account in considering the period for which a person sentenced to life imprisonment should be detained. This being so, I would suggest that the question of medical reports is really something of a side issue.

Nevertheless, I should like to deal with the noble Lord's requests regarding those medical reports. As my right honourable friend has already told the noble Lord, medical reports on prisoners are confidential to my right honourable friend, and it would certainly be entirely contrary to practice to disclose them. My right honourable friend regrets that he is unable to make an exception in this instance. The noble Lord may suggest—indeed, I think he has suggested it—that our practice here is wrong. But, my Lords, I would suggest that there is a very good reason for it. To disclose confidential medical reports of this type would surely be bound to inhibit the very nature of the reports provided by prison medical officers in the future, if we were to make a practice of this sort of thing. I would suggest, therefore, that there are solid grounds for not making an exception here to our longstanding practice.

Now I come to the question of an independent medical examination. It is, of course, open to my right honourable friend to arrange for a prisoner to be examined by an independent specialist if this is considered either necessary or desirable; but this is a matter for my right honourable friend to determine in the circumstances of the individual case, and he cannot accept that he is under an obligation to arrange for such an examination whenever it is requested by a prisoner or by his legal adviser or by other persons who may be intervening, quite properly, on his behalf. There is no question here of there being an issue between the prisoner, on the one hand, and the Home Secretary, on the other, which requires to be referred to or determined by some third party. It is entirely my right honourable friend's responsibility, in accordance with the discretion which Parliament has vested in him, to decide what medical advice he requires in any particular case; and in this instance, for the reasons which I have already indicated, my right honourable friend is entirely satisfied that an independent medical examination would not be of assistance.

I should now like to come to what I think has been the noble Lord's main point in his argument. He has urged very forcibly that my right honourable friend should release Holmes now, in default of medical evidence to the contrary, and he has argued this on the grounds that if Holmes may safely be released on licence in February next year there is no reason on earth why he should not be released now on May 7, 1963. The noble Lord has bolstered his argument by pointing to the fact that Holmes is a "red band" prisoner—a "trusty "—and that he was released on parole on three separate days in 1960. I should like to deal with those two subsidiary arguments straight away. Holmes is, in fact, a "trusty". At Dartmoor he is employed in the gardens and greenhouses of the prison, and during that employment he is not under escort. But, my Lords, such freedom of movement within prison is a very different matter from freedom of movement outside the prison walls. Again, it is true that Holmes was released on parole in 1960 on three occasions to visit his father who was dangerously ill. But, here again, to release a prisoner for a matter of hours on compassionate grounds, with strict instructions to return by a particular time—the prisoner being fully aware of the consequence of abusing the conditions of his release—is a very different matter from releasing a man on licence.

I come back, in conclusion, to the noble Lord's main contention in favour of Holmes's early release. I would remind noble Lords that under Section 27 of the Prison Act, 1952, the Home Secretary has absolute discretion as to when a person serving a sentence of life imprisonment should be released on licence. It seems quite clear from the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, which I have already quoted, that their intention was to leave the) timing of Holmes's release entirely to my right honourable friend's discretion. In considering the period for which such a person should be detained the Home Secretary takes into account—is bound to take into account—all the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence, the character and history of the offender, and any other relevant information. While great weight must obviously be given to medical advice in matters of this sort, that advice is not necessarily the paramount consideration.

I would emphasise that it is not, and never has been, the practice of the Home Secretary—of a Home Secretary, I prefer to say—to give reasons for his decision in a particular case. To do so would be bound to involve public discussion and controversy about the detailed circumstances of the offender, about his conduct and development, whether favourable or otherwise, in prison, of a kind which would be highly detrimental to the prisoner's own interests and to his prospects of ultimate resettlement and rehabilitation. I have been indeed under some constraint, my Lords, in replying to the noble Lord, in that I felt it right not to depart from this principle, and thus I have avoided entering into some details of the case which we have been discussing. But I would emphasise that, as regards the fixing of the date for Holmes's release, the normal practice in life cases has been carefully and strictly observed. Your Lordships will know that Holmes was recently informed that he would be released on licence in February next. It is thought to be helpful, where the prisoner has served a substantial term of imprisonment, for him to be given ample notice before his release. This helps such a prisoner to make the necessary arrangements for his resettlement.

Again I should like to remind the noble Lord that he himself has urged from time to time—and I do not quarrel with this at all—that Holmes should be given a date of release to enable him to be considered for the hostel scheme. He will doubtless remember that my right honourable friend's predecessor gave an undertaking that, when the time came, a date would be fixed sufficiently far in advance for the necessary preparatory arrangements to be made. A prisoner who is included in the hostel scheme normally spends something like six or nine months in the hostel before release, and his case is considered by the hostel selection board about ten months before the date of release. I should like to mention to the noble Lord that I have had inquiries made at Dartmoor prison about the possibility of Holmes's taking part in the hostel scheme, and I can assure the noble Lord that if Holmes applies to be considered for the scheme he will be interviewed in the normal way by a selection board.

LORD STONHAM

May I interrupt the noble Earl to say that I told Holmes today to apply for the scheme? I understand that there is a board meeting on May 21. If there could be some hope that he could be accepted by the board on that day for the scheme it would remove a considerable part of my objection to the later date.

EARL JELLICOE

I think the selection board must be allowed to exercise its independent judgment in this matter. I can certainly confirm that the selection board is meeting on that date, and if Holmes's application is properly made it will, of course, be carefully considered by the board. I think, without trespassing in any way on the board's independence, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance.

I am afraid I have dealt with the case at some length, as indeed did the noble Lord. I make no apology for doing so, because it is, I agree, a grave and serious one and deserves to be dealt with seriously. I do not doubt that I have failed to carry the noble Lord with me in much that I have said. But, my Lords, I must, in conclusion, again emphasise that the question whether, or when, a prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment should be released on licence lies entirely within the discretion of my right honourable friend. I am sure, speaking personally, that this cardinal principle is right. But I would once again assure the noble Lord that, in exercising the discretion with which he has been entrusted by Parliament, my right honourable friend has come to his decision in this case only after the most careful and earnest consideration of all the circumstances.