§ Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Home Secretary whether it is the recognised practice of the Metropolitan police authority, when a subordinate officer is a complainant against a superior, to suggest insanity, and send the complainant to the chief surgeon to be examined as to his sanity, as was ordered in the case of Inspector Syme; whether there have been other cases in addition to that of Syme in which the Disciplinary Board have deemed such an examination necessary; what action on such complainants' parts has induced the Disciplinary Board to compel such an examination; and whether, in cases of conflict of evidence where, as in the case of Syme, insanity was suggested and not established, insanity is as readily suggested in the case of the superior?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLTo act in the manner suggested would be quite opposed to the 2579W practice of the Metropolitan Police, and it is a complete misrepresentation of fact to say that in the case of ex-Inspector Syme insanity was ever suggested. The case of this ex-inspector was referred, in accordance with established practice, to the chief surgeon to report whether he could find in this officer's general state of health any explanation for what appeared to be very extraordinary and unreasonable behaviour on the part of a man with a good record of service. Many such cases are so referred, and often on the medical report further disciplinary proceedings are dropped, or decisions arrived at are, if necessary, modified—the man's state of health being held responsible for the particular default charged against him. There were several such cases during 1910, and they occur every year. It is a practice of many years standing, and it is one that can tell only in favour of, and never adversely to, the officer affected.