THE CASE OF ALFRED WESTON

HL Deb 29 July 1964 vol 260 cc1186-200

7.11 p.m.

LORD STONHAM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that on July 13, Lord Derwent, referring to the case of Alfred Weston said that Miss Maltby was, in fact, interviewed by the police before Weston's appeal was heard"; that, in fact, the interview took place ten months before Weston was originally charged in the magistrates' court and had no connection whatever with his appeal; and, having regard to the importance attached by the Court of Appeal to Miss Maltby's statement, whether they will now arrange for a full legal inquiry to be made into all the facts of the case.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the Question I have addressed to Her Majesty's Government I am asking for a full inquiry into the facts of a case which, I would say, could not happen in England or in an English court. It is the story of a man with a past, a man who, without a word of sworn evidence against him in any court, and on the unsworn statement of an absent plaintiff, was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for a crime which, in my view, was never committed. Of course, no fiction writer would dare write such a story, yet it is a fact that this man, Alfred Weston, was tried and sentenced by a Recorder who, for want of information, was led to believe the worst, and acted accordingly; a case where defence counsel, briefed at the last second, was unaware of, and failed to bring forth, vindicating police evidence which was available from the officer whose function it was to accuse but who was yet able, and willing, to give evidence which could have prevented this tragedy. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will know that that is confirmed by the statement of the police officer to the Court of Appeal.

Above all, it is a case where the defence failed to call a vital witness who could have completely exonerated the accused person. This is not just my opinion; it is the view of eminent Parliamentarians and lawyers who have examined the facts. They include two Queen's Counsel, one of whom until not so long ago was Minister of Health and the other of whom is now one of Her Majesty's Judges. I have studied all the papers and have interviewed some of the persons concerned, and I now want to set forth the facts as I see them as briefly and objectively as possible.

Alfred Weston is a man in his mid-forties, and he has a criminal record dating back to 1943. He has been the subject of 81 charges of dishonesty, not, of course, taken separately, but which have been taken into account on the occasions when he has been arrested and punished. All his offences have been for false pretences or fraud on a minor scale; but although his misdemeanours were small, stupid, and often so clumsily contrived as to invite detection, they were sufficiently frequent to earn him, by 1954, the description of "habitual criminal" and a sentence of eight years' preventive detention. This apparently brought him up short. He applied himself with the utmost determination in prison to improve his education.

He did so with such success that he gained the highest possible British and Empire engineering awards, culminating in a degree as Doctor of Science in aeronautical engineering and membership of the Institute of Navigation. It is undisputed that this man is now a brilliant designer, engineer and inventor, worthy of, and able to hold, a high ranking post in his own field. Naturally, his progress in prison excited the interest of the governor and other influential people, and in 1959 he was given the benefit of the hostel scheme, which meant six months in open employment in Bristol, prior to release on licence in December, 1959.

At the beginning of the hostel period, a Miss Pearl Maltby, a lady of the highest integrity and social standing and a social worker of consequence, was asked by her sister, an L.C.C. children's officer, to assist in the rehabilitation of Weston and his wife, whom he married in 1954 just three months before he was sent to prison. When asked to undertake the social care and guidance of Mr. and Mrs. Weston, Miss Maltby, like most people, was sceptical about the rehabilitation of recidivists; but, impressed by his remarkably courageous and determined work in prison, she took a chance—a chance which, even now, she tells me she does not regret. Weston's technical ability was so outstanding and his determination to lead an honest life so apparent that at the end of the hostel period Miss Maltby offered him a senior post in her small engineering firm, Aero-technic-Bristol. He accepted, and incidentally in so doing turned down an offer of a very good job with a large firm. I want to emphasise that Miss Maltby at all times retained complete financial and managerial control of the business, and whenever Weston acted for the firm in these matters it was always under her direction or with her authority. In many of the things I am now saying I am quoting from actual words or actual documents which are in my possession.

Weston was in charge of design and construction, and in this work he was phenomenally successful. In three weeks the workshop staff increased from two workers to ten. He produced an automatic helmsman, the "Master Mariner", which was exhibited at the Boat Show early in 1960 in London, and many substantial orders were obtained. He demonstrated to experts at the Southampton University Science Exhibition, and one of our principal firms of instrument makers gave him, on the spot, a £2,000 contract for designs done on the spot. For this work Miss Maltby had formed another partnership called the M.M.R. & D. Group. Things were going so well that they looked for more workshop space and more staff in Southampton. In May, 1960, they took over a garage workshop in Southampton from a Mr. Oakley, from whom they were acquiring his sea-going boat, the "Tanya", which was to be used for trials of the engineering products which they were designing.

One of Mr. Oakley's part-time employees, a Mr. McKeever, began to do part-time engineering work for the M.M.R. and D. Group. McKeever had responsibility for the repairs on the "Tanya" before it was handed over, and as they had lost their chief mechanic in moving from Bristol, Miss Maltby offered him the job. He declined to work full-time, so, in order to make sure of retaining his services, they offered him a partnership in M.M.R. and D. Miss Maltby told McKeever that she intended to incorporate this partnership as a limited liability company, and although she did not wish him to contribute to the legal expenses it was only reasonable that within his means he should make some contribution to the working capital of the company.

Later that day Dr. Weston brought McKeever to Miss Maltby and said that McKeever was willing to take a third partnership in the firm for a contribution of £120, plus £5 towards the legal expenses of forming the company. Miss Maltby thought this was a ridiculously small sum but she agreed, and the same day, May 31, McKeever paid her the money in cash. On June 4 she gave him a written receipt, which stated that it was for, "his share in M.M. Research and Development Group in place of Miss P. D. Moulton"—that was a partner who had died. It was a perfectly proper and normal transaction, in which it should be noted that Weston did not touch a penny of the money and did not benefit from it in any way.

Meanwhile, Weston, acting on Miss Maltby's instructions and with McKeever's help, drew up a draft contract which was properly signed by both parties and witnessed. I have a copy here and it is a perfectly clear, fair and proper document which Weston advised McKeever to take to a solicitor to have it vetted, in case he wished to suggest any further provisions for McKeever's protection. Shortly after this Weston, although on licence, went to Eire on the firm's business, and while there he drew a cheque on the firm, which he was perfectly entitled to do. Nevertheless, he was arrested and kept for seven months in an Irish prison awaiting trial. He did not write to Miss Maltby for fear of embarrassing her. It took her a month to find out what had happened, and by then it was too late. The "Tanya" proved unseaworthy, there were many other disasters and of course, in Weston's absence, they could not fulfil their contracts. So Miss Maltby and the firm, Aerotechnic, were made bankrupt.

McKeever's subsequent conduct was remarkable. He first lodged a claim against Miss Maltby for his £125. This she has admitted—additional proof, I would submit, that in McKeever's view Weston had no responsibility in the matter. Incidentally, my Lords, the firm M.M. Research and Development, in which McKeever bought a partnership for £125, is still in existence, it has no liabilities and has substantial assets now dormant. If Weston was free to complete the designs, the estimated income would be sufficient to give McKeever at least a five-fold return on his outlay, and to pay Miss Maltby's creditors. But on Weston's return from Eire, McKeever lodged a complaint against him alleging that he had obtained the £125 by false pretences. He was arrested and charged. Weston knew that, having gone to Ireland while on licence, he would have to return to prison for the licence recall period. Although he had no knowledge of it, he thought that some technical offence had been committed which would merely involve a nominal concurrent sentence; and to save Miss Maltby further publicity and embarrassment he pleaded guilty at the magistrates' court, and was sent to the Assizes for sentence.

Miss Maltby meanwhile had lost her Bristol home, property, car and some £4,000 in addition, and she was bankrupt. It would have been very easy for her to claim that her financial disaster was due to having befriended this man and his wife, as part of the public duty of her social work, and thus perhaps ease her social and financial position through sympathy from those people who are sometimes willing to condemn without hearing in cases of this kind. On the contrary, as soon as she heard of Weston's plea before the magistrates she informed him of the actual position, that there was and could be no offence and that she took full responsibility. She did all in her power to organise his defence. In an affidavit she declared on oath that Weston, since taking employment in her firm, had done no wrong or dishonest act and had lived a highly creditable, industrious and trustworthy life. She was present in court at quarter sessions prepared to give conclusive proof that he was not guilty of any offence, despite the fact that he had pleaded guilty; that the offending transaction was legal, valid and binding on her in every way; that it was her affair throughout; that she was the sole financial controller responsible for the partnership business and affairs. McKeever, the complainant against Weston, significantly, as I think, was not in court. He obviously agrees with this as he has claimed his £125 back from Miss Maltby.

Unfortunately, she was not called as a witness. Defence counsel had barely a minute with Weston before going into court and did not have anything approaching the full details of the case. Indeed, the trial transcript, which I have here and which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has no doubt looked at, indicates that the recorder did not know Weston was legally represented until the proceedings were more than half over. Defence counsel did not, for example, correct the prosecution statement that no receipt was given; he did not call Miss Maltby; he did not elicit from the police officer in charge of the case the evidence he was ready to give, other than the fact that both businesses were genuine and for a time did well. Unfortunately, as a result of all these extraordinary failures, Weston was sentenced to a second term of eight years' preventive detention.

Immediately after the trial, this very able and very fine police officer, Detective Sergeant Pritchard, declared in front of witnesses that he was shocked by the sentence. The defence counsel, on whom in the circumstances no blame rests, did not ask him the questions which he was prepared to answer in full, not only in mitigation but in vindication, because he was satisfied that no fraud was intended by Weston and he certainly gained nothing. Also, if an offence had been committed at all, which the police officer doubted, it was certainly a technical and not a criminal one.

He offered to go with defending counsel to see the recorder in Chambers and try to put the record straight; and as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, knows, the officer has confirmed this in his statement to the Court of Appeal. But counsel declined this offer and Sergeant Pritchard immediately advised Weston to appeal, and promised to tell the Appeal Court what he had been given no opportunity to say at quarter sessions. I emphasise again, my Lords, that the police say that Weston did not have any of the £125 which he was supposed to have obtained by false pretences. That is the first leg which I think is proved beyond dispute. Next day Weston asked for leave to appeal, and in the document which was subsequently prepared he begged the court to hear Sergeant Pritchard's further evidence and answers to questions rele- vant to the appeal. Guilty men do not usually do that, or claim that they have found in the prosecuting police officer a friend for life.

The appeal was not heard until April 17, 1962. I have the judgment of the Appeal Court here, and I should like to read short extracts from what the Lord Chief Justice said. After briefly setting out the allegations, including the fact that Detective Sergeant Pritchard could say that it was not in fact Weston who received the £125, but Miss Maltby, Lord Parker went on—I now quote from the judgment: If Miss Maltby is right, there were no false pretences at all and this man ought never to have pleaded guilty. This was said by the Lord Chief Justice, and he went on: In the ordinary way on an appeal from sessions, where a case has been dealt with on indictment at Sessions, the Court has on occasion quashed a conviction where it is found that a prisoner, perhaps wrongly advised or not being represented, has pleaded guilty when he ought not to have done so; but we have no jurisdiction when that plea is entered at petty sessions as it was here. He continued: Therefore the Court has no option, really, in this case but to dismiss the appeal. It is, of course, open to the appellant to petition the Home Office laying the full facts before them, and though it is not a matter for this Court, no doubt the Home Office will cause enquiries to be made in order to verify the truth, in particular, of Miss Maltby's story. That is the end of the quotation from the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

My Lords, judging by these remarks, it is my view, and the view of others better able to judge in legal matters than I am, that if the Court of Criminal Appeal had had jurisdiction in this matter they would have quashed the conviction. Admittedly, that is only my opinion; but I submit that it is beyond dispute—it is a statement of fact—that the Lord Chief Justice said in the clearest possible way that Miss Maltby's story should be fully investigated to find out whether it was true or false and that, if it was true, then Weston was innocent and should be released. But there has been no such investigation. The petition which the Lord Chief Justice advised was presented, and it was pressed by eminent people. But the Home Secretary has refused to act as advised—at least, he has failed to act as advised.

When I raised this matter by means of a Question in your Lordships' House on July 13, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 260 (No. 98), col. 3]: …the Home Secretary has carefully examined this case on more than one occasion and has had inquiries made ". My Lords, the one person who knows all the facts has not been interviewed. The Home Secretary has not taken the proper steps, as the Lord Chief Justice suggested, to verify the truth of Miss Maltby's story. The police have never questioned Miss Maltby, except on June 29, 1960, which was ten months before Weston was first charged and nearly two years before his appeal.

The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, also said that the Home Secretary had considered Miss Maltby's statement to the Court of Criminal Appeal and was satisfied that its truth had been fully investigated. I do not quite know what that means: whether it means he is satisfied it is true or that he is satisfied that it is untrue. But I would ask the noble Lord: which statement has he considered? Is it the affidavit, running to 23 foolscap pages and setting out the whole case in detail, or is it a brief summary of a few hundred words? In any case—and I hope the noble Lord will answer this question—is he satisfied as to whether it is true or false? If it is true, why has Weston not been released? If it is untrue, why has Miss Maltby not been charged with an offence? The plain truth is that this case has not been investigated on the basis of all the facts now known. All that has happened is that the Home Secretary has had a report from the police based on nothing more than was known at the trial.

A new and very dubious point has arisen. Weston's legal advisers asked Mr. McKeever for a written authority to the Chief Constable of Southampton to supply a copy of his original statement, his original accusation. Mr. McKeever gave this authority, but the Chief Constable refused to supply the statement, on the ground that it was not his usual practice. He sent a copy to McKeever, who, by this time, for some mysterious reason which I do not know, had changed his mind, and refused to supply the copy of his own statement. My Lords, I regard this as somewhat sinister, because in this unhappy affair, in my submission, no offence has been committed by anyone except, possibly, Weston's accuser.

I submit that we reach the indisputable position that Weston did not touch, or even see, the money he was said to have obtained; nor did he benefit from it. I know that on July 13 the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, suggested that that was irrelevant, but I would say that if the man did not have the money we are halfway there. It could be alleged, for example, that he had made some false pretence which had induced this man to pay the money to Miss Maltby. But, as I have said, there has not been a word of sworn evidence in any court to that effect. I have read through the papers, and I cannot find a vestige of evidence that Weston used any false pretence to persuade McKeever to pay this money to Miss Maltby.

A few days ago there was a television discussion of this case in the programme, "Fair Play ". Among those taking part was Sir Thomas Moore, the Deputy Father of the House in another place. Sir Thomas Moore's views about the treatment of prisoners are fairly well known. He believes in severe punishment for prisoners. On this case, he had been adequately briefed by the Home Office, quite properly; but on television he said this—I was there, and I heard him say it: Before I came here I had reached the conclusion that this was a ' put-up job' between Weston and Miss Maltby; but, having now met her, I know this would be quite impossible. He said that to the world at large. I submit that common justice demands that an impartial legal inquiry should now do the same thing: that it should see and question Miss Maltby and then form its own opinion and advise the Home Secretary accordingly.

By a strange combination of circumstances, and through no particular person's fault, a grave injustice has been done. It is too late now to repair all the harm that has been done, but the harm continues. This man has already been three years in prison, and it is in the Home Secretary's power to end it. I think your Lordships will agree that British justice imperatively demands that justice should be done, whatever a man's record; and in this case justice should be seen to be done. That can happen only if the Home Secretary orders the full, open, impartial inquiry which I now demand. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will tell us to-night that this full inquiry will be held; alternatively, that Weston will be released; or, at the very least, that he will say that all I have said and put forward will be fully considered with the object of looking at this whole matter again, fairly and objectively.

7.38 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT)

My Lords, may I start by dealing with the Question on the Order Paper, in which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggests, whether deliberately or not, that I misled the House in certain things I said on July 13? It is perfectly true that, in replying to a supplementary question—it was not the original Question, but a supplementary question—asked by the noble Lord, I used these words (col. 3): … Miss Maltby was, in fact, interviewed by the police before Weston's appeal was heard ". This was a perfectly correct record of what I said, but I did not intend to convey that there was any direct connection between the interview and the appeal. If the noble Lord remembers, he was discussing the appeal in his supplementary question, and he used these words. He said: …this witness"— he was referring to Miss Maltby— …has never been interviewed by the police,… It was in answer to that statement, when we were in fact discussing the appeal, that I said that those words of the noble Lord were quite incorrect and that at a previous time, before the appeal, she had been interviewed by the police.

May I say what actually happened? The police interviewed Miss Maltby on June 29, 1960, while they were investigating the alleged offence with which Weston was subsequently charged; and a warrant for Weston's arrest was issued a few days later, on July 5. The noble Lord has made some considerable play with this ten months' interval. Before we come on to the next stage of this busi- ness, the reason for the interval of ten months before Weston's appearance in the magistrates' court was that the warrant could not be executed until April, 1961, on Weston's release from a sentence of imprisonment in the Irish Republic.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? If he will read Hansard to-morrow he will see that in my speech I made no play with the ten months. It is mentioned in the Question only.

LORD DERWENT

The noble Lord says that it was mentioned in the Question only. As it was the noble Lord's Question, I am sure he intended that it should be taken into account.

If the form of words I used suggested that there was any direct connection between the interview and the appeal, I regret it. I am sure the noble Lord | will accept that I had no wish to mislead the House. If my remark had been in answer to the original Question I might have chosen my words more carefully, but it was in answer to a supplementary question. But I welcome this opportunity of clarification. I felt it right at the time to explain that the police had interviewed Miss Maltby, since this interview was about the facts which were the subject of the charge against Weston and which later formed the basis of his appeal against sentence and of Miss Maltby's statement in support of the appeal.

To-day, the noble Lord has said that there had been no sworn evidence against this man. But not only was this man conversant with the practice of the courts, he was asked by the magistrate whether he was aware of the difference between pleading guilty and not guilty. He was, in fact, asked that by the police, and he said that he was conversant with court practice. The reason why no sworn evidence was produced was that he pleaded guilty, and I am personally convinced, as is everyone else who has examined the case, that he knew what he was doing, whatever the reason, when he pleaded guilty, and that sworn evidence would not be produced against him.

I am not going into the full case, but I must say that I do not agree (if I may say it without giving offence) with the noble Lord's somewhat biased version of what took place before the man was charged.

I should like now to deal, first of all, with two points the noble Lord raised to-day. He referred to my statement on a previous occasion that whether this man touched the money or not was irrelevant. I will explain it at greater length. What I said was: It appears to my right honourable friend that the question of whether Weston himself obtained any benefit, directly or otherwise, is irrelevant. I think those were the words I used. He was convicted under Section 32 of the Larceny Act, 1916, which provides—and I quote: every person who by any false pretence with intent to defraud obtains from any other person any…money…, or causes or procures any money to be paid"— and these are the important words: to himself or to any other person…shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. It is perfectly true that in a charge of this kind, provided that it can be proved, it is quite irrelevant whether the man handled the money himself.

The other point I must correct—and I think I touched on it briefly before—was the question of Mr. McKeever's statement, which the solicitors asked for. My right honourable friend has no power to give any directions in this matter; and the police behaved perfectly correctly. Then sent Mr. Mckeever, which is all they were entitled to do, a copy of his statement and said that they would have no objection to his giving a copy to the solicitors, which is the proper thing to do. It was up to Mr. McKeever; and Mr. McKeever decided not to do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said. Again I repeat that my right honourable friend has no power to make him do so. After the Court of Criminal Appeal had dismissed the appeal on April 17, 1962, my right honourable friend—and I have chosen these words carefully, because the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has suggested my right honourable friend has not made proper enquiries—

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, may I ask a question? I am not a lawyer, nor did I know of this case before; therefore I am in the position of the man in the street trying to hear both sides. Does the Minister accept the account that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has given of what went on in the Court of Criminal Appeal, in the sense that the Court of Criminal Appeal felt they were not in a position to pronounce on the merits of this at all, and that it lay outside their jurisdiction? Is that accepted by the Government.

LORD DERWENT

Yes, my Lords, within the terms actually explained by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Those words were actually used. While I am on the subject of the words of the Lord Chief Justice, he did say—I am paraphrasing—"if Miss Maltby is to be believed". He expressed no opinion whether she was or was not truthful. I say that in view of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, put that matter.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I quoted the exact words used by the Lord Chief Justice. What he said was perfectly clear. I repeated the exact words as a quotation.

LORD DERWENT

The noble Lord repeated the exact words, but he did not add that there was no expression of opinion by the Lord Chief Justice. He merely said, "If the statement is correct.

My right honourable friend, when inquiring into this matter, studied the full transcript—not an abbreviated one, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—of the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal and all the other appeal documents, including the statement made by Miss Maltby who claimed that Weston was innocent, a record of the proceedings at the quarter sessions, and (what I think has not been available entirely to the noble Lord opposite), the full reports from the police at all stages. Miss Maltby's statement was carefully considered in conjunction with all the other information available, but it was not thought at that stage that a further interview with Miss Maltby would serve any useful purpose or throw any further light on the matter, because my right honourable friend was clear as to what Miss Maltby had said originally in her statement to the police and at the Court of Appeal. There was no doubt about what she said. It was therefore considered unnecessary to interview her further.

It was decided, as the noble Lord knows, after careful consideration that there were no grounds for further action by my right honourable friend. The case has been looked at again on several occasions since in the light of further representations and certain additional inquiries of the police were made quite recently. But nothing has come to light which gives any reason to depart from the earlier decision.

The noble Lord suggests that a full legal inquiry should be made into all the facts of the case. But we do not think that an inquiry would be likely to throw further light on the matter. The person conducting the inquiry would have to depend largely, like the Home Secretary, on the results of police inquiries, and there is no reason to think that in the present case he would be in a better position than the Home Secretary to ascertain the truth. Nor would he have power to compel the attendance of witnesses or to require evidence to be given on oath. I am not sure if there is any suggestion that, besides ascertaining the facts, an independent person should come to a conclusion on the merits of the case and on the action to be taken. But if so, the House will appreciate that the Home Secretary cannot delegate to, or share with, an independent tribunal the responsibility for deciding whether Her Majesty should be advised to exercise the Prerogative.

I have listened with care to what the noble Lord has said, and I shall read what he has said. My right honourable friend will also read it and take note of it. But I am bound to say, in view of the extensive enquiries which have been made repeatedly and which my right honourable friend has also made, relying in large part on the documents and the police reports, because there is no other method of obtaining information, that I cannot hold out any hope that he will think it proper to take any further action in the matter.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I am certainly not acting in any way collusively with my noble friend Lord Stonham in this matter. I was not aware this matter was going to come up until I came into the House; and the whole issue is fresh to me. But I am bound to say that one is left with a feeling of surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has banged the door. He said he would take note of it but could not raise any hope that there would be any change. I think it would be hard for anybody who has heard this discussion to understand why this door has been banged. I understand that Miss Maltby was interviewed four years ago. There seems something peculiar about the refusal of the Home Office to see her. After all, we have the interesting testimony of the impression Miss Maltby made on Sir Thomas Moore, who met her in the course of a television programme and was convinced that she was genuine. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that if Miss Maltby is an honest woman in this matter, then this case must be quashed. So far as I can see, the only ground for not liberating this man Weston is that Miss Maltby is not to be believed, and if that is the only ground, I regard it as shocking that Miss Maltby should not be heard, to see whether in fact she does make the impression of being an honest woman. Therefore, I would express, with very great regret, severe censure of the attitude of the Government up to now.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, if his closing words mean that I may expect him to write me about this case, after he and his right honourable friend have considered what I have said to-night?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I am not supposed to speak again. I imagine that the noble Lord wants to know whether we shall take further action or not, and about that I will write to him.