§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary in how many cases young persinse dealt with by the juvenile court under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, as being in need of care and protection, either by being committed to an approved school or otherwise, have subsequently been committed to prison or Borstal notwithstanding the fact that they have committed no criminal offence; and will he state the age, sex, and prison to which he or she has been committed in each case?
§ Sir J. SIMONSince 1st November, 1933, when the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, came into force, no boy or girl who was originally ordered to be sent to an approved school as being in need of care or protection has been subsequently committed to prison, but 10 girls, detained in approved schools, have been sent to a Borstal Institution (Aylesbury) by order of a court either for serious misconduct in the school or for absconding. Six were between 16 and 17, and four between 17 and 18 years of age. Three girls between 17 and 18 who were originally brought before the court by their parents as being beyond control and were ordered to be sent to an approved school have been subsequently ordered by the court to be sent to Aylesbury Borstal Institution for absconding.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Elsie Emily Mason, aged 18, who had been committed to an approved school on the ground that she was beyond the control of her parents, was recently committed to 44W Borstal for a period of two years following her escape from the approved school, although she had committed no criminal offence; and will he make inquiries into this case?
§ Sir J. SIMONI am aware of the case of this girl. She was brought before a juvenile court in April, 1935, under Section 62 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, as being a girl who, having a parent not exercising proper care and guardianship, was falling into bad associations and exposed to moral danger, and she was ordered to be sent to an approved school. She required hospital treatment and was not admitted to the school until the 16th July, 1935. On her admission she was found by the managers to be a continual source of disturbance in the school, twice absconding and reaching London by obtaining rides on lorries. On the last occasion she was charged by the managers in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and was ordered at Bow Street Police Court to be sent to a Borstal Institution. She appealed against this sentence on the 8th May, but the appeal was dismissed by the London Sessions on 12th June last, the chairman stating that the decision of the magistrate was in the girl's best interests.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Frank Marett, 29, Prospect Road, Woodford Green, aged 15, was committed to a reformatory institution by the Stratford juvenile court on 10th February 1936, but that instead he was sent to Wormwood Scrubs adult prison and kept there for one month; that on being released from Wormwood Scrubs he was transferred to Romford workhouse where he became ill and was sent to the infirmary; that he was then transferred to Stamford House, Goldhawk Road, Shepherds Bush, W.12; and whether he will advise that this boy be released on probation?
§ Sir J. SIMONOn February 24th, 1936, this boy was ordered to be sent to an Approved School by the Stratford Juvenile Court, and as there was no immediate vacancy he was committed to Wormwood Scrubs Prison pending a vacancy, the Justices giving a certificate 45W of unruliness in accordance with the provisions of Section 33 of the Children and Young Persons Act. Subsequently on the 20th March the Justices ordered his removal from Wormwood Scrubs to a Remand Home provided by the Essex Authority, and he absconded the day after his removal there. He was rearrested and was transferred to the hospital of the Institution under observation for cardiac weakness. He was under medical attention till May 5th, when he was transferred back to the main building. On June 3rd he was removed from this Remand Home to the Remand Home provided by the London County Council, from which he absconded on June 9th. He was re-arrested the same day and returned to the Remand Home, where he remained till July 3rd, on which date he was removed to an Approved School. I have no power to order the boy to be released on probation and the case is not one in which I feel justified in taking any special action. I am informed by the Police that this boy admitted five other offences in addition to the offences with which he was charged.