SUSPECTED PERSONS
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—One may qualify to be a " suspected person " in either of two ways—by acting so suspiciously that even a n:erc civilian concludes that you are up. to no good (Vagrancy Act 1824) or by having such a bad record that whatever you do the police think that the odds are that you are about to commit yet another offence (Prevention of Crimes Act 1871). So the outcry against the present law which empowers the police to arrest and the courts to convict a person,, not of the commission of a crime but of the intention to commit one, is raised on behalf of two classes of people, poles apart as regards their character, reputation and .social position. It naturally infuriates a perfectly respectable citizen to. be arrested because he has been so foolish as to wander about studying the varieties of cars in a car park at a late hour of the night, actuated by nothing worse titan curiosity. Such is the uncertainty of human affairs that in these circumstances even the respectable may find themselves in danger of the judgement—especially if they are haled before a Bench of magistrates insufficiently equipped with law to sift the evidence. But a good character will go a long way, and legal representation further.
The real danger of these charges is the damage done to old offenders who really desire and intend to go straight. It is beyond doubt that many crimes are prevented by the arrest of those on the point of committing them, and the police rightly and naturally value a power which enables them to close the stable door before the horse is stolen. But Society is greater than the police, and against this piecemeal saving we must set the loss which is involved—the sense of injustice generated and' the discouragement of those who, despite a criminal record, have no felonious intent. As the Howard
League, in its evidence before the Persistent Offenders Committee stated, " We wholly distrust and disapprove of a system which makes the administration of justice depend on thought reading by the police, the judge or the jury, or appears to the accused to 'do so."
Mr. Gardner is _not alone among those who, having long and intimate eXperienee of work amongst ex-prisoners, have arrived at the conclusion that these laws inevitably bear harshly and unfairly, not only on the " just " but on the " unjust." The following cases, amongst others, have at one time and another come before our notice at the Howard League :
(I) A., aged 35. Several convictions and sentences of. imprisonment ; lived honestly for eighteen months after discharge, in close touch with his Prison Visitor throughout. Lost his job when the contract was finished, and after fruitless search for work at home, went to another town where he was known to the police, and within two days was convicted of
loitering with intent." He vehemently denied the charge, which, whether true or not, would not have been held to be proved had the man not been a " suspected person."
(2) B. and C. came from their home town to another on
promise of work ; arrived by train direct and within one hour of arrival were arrested on the charge of ," loitering with intent," convicted and given twelve months' imprisonment. They had no implements in their PoSsession. The social worker who reported the case knows the men well, and says, " I have' to confess that their particular case has roused me against this monstrous Act, because it is _obvious to anyone who has eyes to see, how they feel this thing works against their ever getting on the straight.road again." (3) D., arrested by police and-convicted of " loitering with intent," though evidence was given by two witnesses of irreproachable character (one a Prison Visitor) that D. had left' the first witness to keep an appointment with the second, the times recorded by these witnesses being inconsistent with the
police evidence. • - Ili view of such facts we urge that no man should be eon-' victed. of felonious intent unless it is proved that he was at the
time of arrest in possession of housebreaking tools or his overt actions were inexplicable except in terms of 'Criminal intention. It was brought up against a man recently -charged at Herts Quarter Sessions with loitering with intent that he was seen by a policeman to go into a gateway, and that when he emerged after a few seconds and was arrested and searched, he had a screwdriver and other tools in his possession. He explained that he stopped in the gateway to tie his shoelace, and that the tools were some he used at his work as a motor engineer. He was able to plead and prove good character ; he was tried before a Bench presided over by a distinguished lawyer and he was acquitted. Can we be confident as to the outcome of the charge had he been an old lag, unrepresented, and tried before a wholly lay Bench ?
If anyone can suggest practical reforms to. secure a juster administration of these laws, the inquiry Mr. Gardner asks for as to procedure between arrest and prosecution might have great value.
We want the best justice for the worst people, because they- need it most.—I am, Sir, yours, &e.,
Parliament Mansions, Orchard Street, S.W. 1.
Previous page
