HC Deb 23 December 1929 vol 233 c1921W

asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Peay, a naval pensioner, recently convicted at Kingston Police Court and sentenced to a fine and term of imprisonment; seeing that sentence of imprisonment may involve loss of pension, will he see whether the sentence of imprisonment can be remitted so as to safeguard the man's pension; if he is aware that the man had no legal representative, in consequence of which he omitted to exercise his right of appeal within the statutory period; and if he can make arrangements whereby accused persons in similar cases may be explicitly informed of their rights of appeal?


My attention has been called to this case, and I have been making inquiry concerning the facts and am now in communication with the Justices. I may say, however, that the Forfeiture Act does not apply, so that there is no question of automatic forfeiture of the pension and it is not necessary for the purpose of avoiding such forfeiture to recommend interference with the sentence. Every prisoner has in his cell a card from which he can see, immediately upon reception, what must be done if he wishes to appeal.


asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence passed by the Kingston magistrates of three months' imprisonment on Beatrice Sewell for stealing 7s. 0½d.; whether he is aware that it was the woman's first offence; and whether he will consider reviewing this sentence?


I have seen reports. It was not a first offence. Many offences were admitted, and, after consideration, I am afraid it is not a case in which I could recommend interference with the sentence passed by the Court.