HC Deb 19 March 1935 vol 299 cc1007-8W

asked the Home Secretary with regard to the case of flogging in April, 1934, where a wound on the chest caused by the flogging necessitated prolonged treatment, what was the age of the prisoner; what other sentence accompanied the sentence of flogging, and for what offence; were there any previous convictions against him; how long a time elapsed between the flogging and the healing of the wound; whether any investigation was made by the prison commissioners; and if so, what was its nature and was any medical opinion obtained on the case other than that of the prison medical officer?


The prisoner in question was convicted of attempt to suffocate, entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit a felony and with assault with intent to ravish, and was sentenced to three years' Borstal detention in addition to the award of corporal punishment. At the date of conviction his age was just over 18. He had no previous convictions. The suggestion that there was a wound requiring prolonged treatment is mistaken. As I explained in reply to a previous question, the injury was superficial only. It was of so trivial a character that the records do not show when it was completely healed, but the period was about a fortnight. The subsequent treatment to which I referred was for a local inflammation which developed later. There was no indication that the prisoner's condition called for any special investigation, but he was in fact seen by the Medical Commissioner when he visited the Borstal Institution. The Medical Commissioner informs me that from the history of the case he is not sure whether the local inflammation may not have arisen independently, but in any case he was satisfied that the prisoner had received proper treatment.