MR. CHURCHILL'S ENGLAND [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Your
article under this heading in the issue of April 28th, expressed satisfaction, with Mr. Churchill, at the state of England's courts of justice. I wonder if that view would be shared by-all whose occupations lie among the criminal classes " is a fact, of which your readers should be aware, that people in this country may still be imprisoned for as great a period_as six months for doing nothing whatever against the law, on nothing which can be called reasonable evidence. I refer to cases of arrest on the grounds of suspected -"loitering with intent " to commit a crime. In the first place the arrest is made on the suspicion of the police officer alone ; and -it may be noticed at once that a man with a perfectly innocent record who might be taken into custody on such a charge (sometimes not even preferred until the police station is reached) might be expected to show some signs of resistance, and would then be promptly charged with hindering 'a police officer in the execution. of his duty. The case—assuming that the additional charge has not been incurred—then reaches the Magistrate's court, and a remand is usually granted. What for ? For further investigation. What of ? For how can you investigate a man's intentions ? The investigation is usually,, of his past record. This is admitted as evidence against him in the Magistrate's Court, although I understand that this would not be allowed in a Court of Assize. Justice and logic alike make it obvious that a man's past record, even if criminal, cannot alone be considered evidence of his present intentions, and th:t remainder of the evidence probably rests on the police officer's Impressions of his appearance and movements at the time of the arrest.
Of two cases I have in mind, one, an ex-burglar, was not actually loitering with intent on an occasion when he was arrested on that charge ; (he had no reason to give me a false account some years later, and indeed admitted that he might very well have been, but was not actually, guilty)— he received a sentence of six months and accordingly was sent to prison for doing nothing whatever ; the other a perfectly innocent man who has never been, and had never been, charged with a crime, since or before, was released after a week's remand. However much people may like to gloss over the fact, a week "/ remand is a week's prison; so we are forced to the inevitable conclusion that in a case of this sort, a man is treated as guilty until he is proved innocent. Further than this ; if we consider evidence of past character inadmissible in justice as evidence of present guilt, it follows that a man can be, and is, either imprisoned for a week without trial, or imprisoned for a longer period with trial, on the sole evidence of a police officer's suspicions as to the internal workings of another man's mind. God alone knows what goes to snake up the police officers' suspicions, but one may take it, for instance, that a well-dressed person looking into a stranger's car would not be arrested on suspicion, whereas a poor man actually is, on occasion. So a further conclusion is that there is one law for the rich, and another for the poor." One might add, a third for the police ; for what police officer would be arrested, still further sentenced, on someone else's suspicions, without further evidence ? Yet it would be easy to find a police officer in circumstances which for anyone else might be " suspicious."
Personally I am not satisfied that the suspicions of a police officer are an adequate ground for committing a man to prison ; I have not that confidence in the police. And I should suggest that, while we are congratulating ourselves on our superiority to Russia, a little self-examination might be useful. It is perhaps worth adding that in a Magistrates' Court the accused h usually without legal defence, and has arrayed against him all the forces of the police and detectives. This places on the magistrate the very unfair burden of both trying a case and conducting the defence—a task which is performed variously, I suppose, by various performers.—I am, Sir, &c., P. M. GEDGE, 40 Tabard Street, S.E. 1. Charterhouse Missioner.
Previous page
