It is the first rule of British criminal law to
convict a man for the offence of which he is accused and not for some other. The notion of saying that a man wrongly convicted of forgery has little to complain of because there is good reason to believe that he received corrupt commissions is abhorrent to every principle of justice. It reminds one of the statement that Mr. Beck had no right to complain of the false imprison- ment he admittedly endured because be was alleged to be connected with the promotion of doubtful companies. Strange as it may seem, the Home Office authorities do not appear to recognise that a man must either be guilty or innocent in the eye of the law, and that there is no middle term. If they still believe him guilty, then let him bear the burden of his guilt. If they believe that he was not proved guilty, and is therefore innocent in the eye of the law, they should say so plainly, and refrain from any accusations of an indirect kind. "It seems after all he didn't do it, but he's a precious shady sort of customer all the same," is well enough for the smoking-room or the inn parlour, but it is an impossible attitude for the representative of the final authority in the State in a matter of criminal jurisdiction.
Previous page
