RONALD TRUE’S REPRIEVE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18624, 4 August 1922, Page 9

RONALD TRUE’S REPRIEVE

INSANITY AND CHIMB. HOME SECRETARY'S DECISION. BOUND BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT. SHOULD THE LAW BE ALTERED? (Fbom Oub Own Cobrespondknt.) LONDON, June 15. Ronald True, the ot-offioor who was sent out to New Zealand as a youth, and who was sentenced to death for the murder of the woman Olive Young, .in a Pulhatn flat, has been taken to Broadmoor, where, at the taxpayers' expense, ho will spend a supervise!! but comparatively pleasant life, and will be able to amuse himself with cricket, billiards, and cards and eat what ha likes. The Home Secretary’s decision bo reprieve this murderer, coming as it does a few days after his decision to reject the appeal for mercy on behalf of the boy Jacoby, who killed Lady White, has created wide public interest and invited outspoken criticism. Whatever the. legal facts of the case, public sentiment is entirely against True’s life being spared. The jury that tried him had no doubt of his sanity; at any rate, they were told by the judge that if they thought that the prisoner was not responsible for his actions, they must find him “guilty, but insane.” They pointedly declined to bring in that verdict. In the case of Jacoby the jury recommended him to mercy, but the boy was hanged. It is a long time since any criminal case has called forth such a flood of newspaper protest and comment. ' There are many people who will charge the newspapers with sensationalism. This is probably perfectly true. Competition in circulation is so keen to-day that ’no London daily can afford to neglect suoh on opportunity for doublecoluma. headings and extravagant' acciisations. However, apart from all other considerations, there is a serious question as to whether the inflictions of the penalties of the law are to be left to medical experts or to the courts. Promptly, the Home Office explained i its position, but, in spite of it being fairly clear that the Home Secretary was bound by law’ to act as he did, the full weight of recriminations continued to fall on his head. HOME OFFICE EXPLANATION. The Home Office reported that the Home Secretary had before him the reports of two medical officers at Brixton Prison, who had had True under daily observation for nearly two months, to the effect that, in their opinion, True was certiflably insane. These two officers gave evidence to this effect at the Old Bailey. Two medical experts of eminence, Dr Smith and Dr Stoddart, gave similar evidence. This brought True under the section of the Criminal Lunatics Act which provides that the Home Secretary “ehall” (not “may”) appoint legally qualified medical practitioners to inquire into a pj isoceris sanity. He accordingly appointed three eminent specialists, Sir John Baker (Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum), Sir Maurice Craig (consulting neurologist to the Ministry of Pensions), end Dr Dyer (Commissioner of Prisons), to examine True, and they unanimously reported that True is insane. The section of the Act provides that a majority of the examining doctors may decide that the prisoner is insane, but in the case of True the three specialists were unanimous.

IN DEFIANCE OF THE JURY. It appears that the Home Secretary, in appointing the committee of inquiry, acted upon the advice of the doctors who gave evidence for the defence at the trail. The Homo Secretary is not bound ha the Act to respite a prisoner on the rejwrt of the committee. did so in this case in dedance of the verdict of the jury and of strongly expressed judicial comment. "He has done so, indeed! (said The Times) in contempt of public sentiment and of that righteous indignation which springs up on such occasions' almost unconsciously for the protection of civilised society. Had the main contention of his counsel been successful, that there was a lack of mental control, there would be little chance of bringing any murdered to , justice. The Criminal Lunatics Act seems to have been a yielding to pathologists which is no contribution to the welfare and economy o f our social system. "The respite is not only an unwarranted interference with the administration of the law (said the Daily Mail), but also a grave political blunder—since people will insist on contrasting the Home Secretary’s action in this case with that taken in the case of Jacoby, who was executed two days before. Ole public indignation at Mr Shortt’s decision shows that there is widespread uneasiness leet the ‘many and great perils’ which Mr Justice M’Cardie declared might assail Society if the doctrine of criminal responsibility were unduly relaxed, may have been brought sensibly nearer by the respital of Ronald True.’’, A COMPARISON. “What Parliament has to discover (according to the Daily Herald) is eimply this; Why did the Home Secretary, in the case of Jacoby, refuse to consider the jury’s appeal | why i dad he refuse to eee the boy's solicitor; why was the clemency of the Kmg refused to a boy who, from his cradle, was brought up surrounded by every influence that could damm his whole future life, and why was it that the trouble taken to secure a reprieve, by hook or by crook, for Ronald True proved successful? Let there be no mistake; we are sincerely glad that one life is saved, even though that life is as unworthy a one as Roland True’s. What we are demanding is that the Home Secretary shall be forced to tell the nation why mercy was granted in the one case and refused hi the other.’’ These are a few samples of the opinions hold by the press, even the two or three more moderate-toned journals join in the protest. - Then came the statement made by Mr Justice Avory in a grand jury 'charge at Exeter. After hoping that the light calendar might be taken as a sign that the crime-wave was declining, 1 ho said; “Whether it will continue to abate if the infliction of the penalties of the law is to bo left to the discretion of experts in Harley Street, I very much doubt, for the only real deterrent to crime is the certainty that the appropriate penalty will follow upon its commission.” Naturally much was made of this Harley street allusion, for rarely, indeed, does an English judge thus express his personal opinion. \ ADMIRAL SIB PERCY SCOTT. Admiral Sir Percy Scott, in a letter, was directly to the point. “ The taxpayers;*' ho wrote, “ are to be called upon to pay for the housing, clothing, feeding, medical attendance, recreation, etc., of a man who committed a brutal and barbaric murder. I refer to Ronald True. Whether he is a lunatic or not, why should the taxpayer pay to keep in existence a * man who brutally murders a woman in order to steal her jewellery? AVe hang a man of 18 because he commited a brutal murder. We lot off and support for the remainder of his life a more brutal murderer, who has influential friends. Murderers had better be tried by naval court-martial We should expend a few pence more in rope, but save the country many thousands in lunatic asylums.” MR SHORTT EXPLAINS. Mr Shortt. the Home Secretary, just book from the battlefields of Prance, where he had been while the excitement prevailed, made a clear and straightforward statement in the House. Nor was there any doubt as to the complete effectiveness of his defence eo far as related to his own personal conduct which had been impugned. When he had ended, and Mr Stanley 'Holmes tried to get 39 other members to stand up in support of his motion for the adjournment of the House, in order to debate the matter more fully, only 27 responded, and of these only Sir P. Banbury rose from the Government side. Mr Shortt was able to show that his own administration of the law was quite unimpeachable. His case, indeed, was that if he had acted otherwise, he would have committed “ a flagrant breach of public duty." The Act of 1834, " in peremptory terms,” requires that the Home Secretary “shall appoint" an expert committee of inquiry in case ho has any reason to believe that a prisoner is insane. No rebutting evidence hod been given at the trial to disprove the evidence of True’s insanity, and ho had been found insane by two prison doctors and two other medical experts. He (Mr Shortt) had left the case to the unfettered judgment of three distinguished experts, and they confirmed the opinions of the other doctors. * BOUND TO ACT ON REPORT. . The Lord Chief Justice, in delivering judgment, had practically directed him to hold a medical inquiry. He was, therefore, bound to institute it, and bound also to act on the report when submitted to him, for it has been the law of the land fox 300 years that no insane person shall be hanged, no matter when the insanity supervenes, even if the criminal is sane wfyen the crime is committed. Thus the personal element in the discussion was cleared away somewhat. MEDICAL EXPERT’S VIEWS Sir Maurice Craig said: “ I agree absolutely with Mr Justice Avory. 1 hold that such a matter as Ronald True’s fate should be left to the judge and jury. I was called in and asked a professional question: Ts Ronald True insane ’ and I gave a professional answer. The public do not want us to lie. It was not for mo to ask what would be the result of my diagnosis. It is frequently charged against the medical profession that they disagree. In this case the seven doctors have agreed that True is insane, so that it may be taken thai the symptoms are very definite. But i ogreo that the question of Ronald True’s fate is one that should be settled by the

judge and jury. I do not agree at all with, the Freud school, which would tend to substitute treatment ior punishment. I have written against it. I am against the view that a. host of finely-drawn theoretical considerations should get mixed up mth the rough, practical things of life. Common sense must rule. Judge and jury represent the rule of common sense. If the State_ has decided that crime must be punished in a certain way, I would be a fool if I did not accent it. I am a citizen first. Human nature being what it is, I believe that punishment, including capital punishment, is a necessity. It is not for me to «iy how it should be brought about, but I hmd as emphatically as anyone that Ronald Trues fate was a decision for a judge and jury, and not for what Mr Justice Avory colls ‘experts in Harley street.’ " . . In answer to this letter Sir Hall Caine pointed out that the meaning of the law was thot, a man guilty off murder or condemned to death shall have full opportunity to repent of his crime and moke, even at the last moment, his peace with God. This, the strictly Christian view, had never been referred to throughout the controversy. “The outcry has been great,” wrote Sir Hall Caine, “because the Homo Secretary has refused to execute a madman. But u he had hanged the lunatic the outcry would have been a thousandfold greater.” There is authority for stating that if, after due consideration, it is thought desirable to make a change in the law, it will take the form of entrusting to the Court of Criminal Appeal the duty of trymg_ the question of fact where a prisoner has been certified as insane The result would be that, instead of the Home Secretary being bound by the opinion of the doctor, he would have power to ask the Court of Criminal Appeal to investigate the matter and advise him as to whether or not he should act upon the certificate of the medical experts.

STATEMENT BY LORD COLERIDGE. Lord Coleridge yesterday remarked; “'There is at the moment much discussion as to the difference between the legal and medical view of for crime where insanity is alleged to exist. I hope that the legal doctrine that the knowledge of difference between right and wrong as the test of such responsibility will never be displaced by any medical theories: per should we tamper with the finality of the verdicts of juries except upon well-known legal ground. I also think that trial by the public press is on all grounds to be deprecated, but in certain cases the law makes it imperative on the Home Secretary to refer the matter to the committee of medical experts. Such committee might prefer the medical to the legal view of responsibility for crime. Unless the report of such committee is set aside by the Home Secretary—a course which no Home Secretary should be called upon to undertake—the law in effect makes a committee of doctors infringe upon and lessen h» supreme responsibility. This may be a defect in the law, but it is not a fair ground for imputing blame to the Home Secretary. TRUE’S PARENTAGE. As reference has been made to the parentage of Ronald True, the Sunday Etp<r<*B has gone to the trouble of reproducing the birth certificate. This shows that the murderer’s birthplace was Cffiorlton-upon-Mea-look, a small suburb south of Manchester, cue of the numerous villages’ which gradually grew into a small town, dependent on Manchester’s staple cotton industry. His father was William True, who is described as a journalistic -artist. His mother waß Annabel True, formerly Angus. Mrs True, in 1902, married the fifth Lord He Freyne, who was killed in the European War in 1916, and was succeeded by his half-brother, the present peer. AMERICAN CAREER. San Francisco messages declare that there is no, doubt that Ronald True is the some man who served a sentence of imprisonment ■ in California in 1915, charged with forging stolen money-orders. The facte of his conviction in Alameda were brought to light by Mr William Madiera, a Post Office inspector, who traced True in his flight from the Pacific Coast to New Orleans, where he was arrested, and a comparison of the photographs with those of True taken completed identification. At the time of his conviction he claimed the right to the stylo. of “tile Hon. Arthur Reginald French, otherwise Lord De Freyne, of French Park, County Roscommon, Ireland.” He was an adventurer, and a soldier of fortune, according to the officer 'who traced him. He had been an army officer, a sheep rancher in Africa, an aviator in Brazil, a member of the Royal Canadian Police, and while at San Francisco he tried his bond at prize-fighting. On discharge, after has 15 months’ sentence at San Francisco he left for Hongkong early in 1915, with the intention of enlisting in the British Army. According to the Daily Express, “True_ at an early age showed wayward tendencies, and frequently got beyond the control of his mother. He was educated at Bedford Grammar school. Although many efforts were made to find a suitable profession .ior him to follow, his adventurous spirit made it impossible for his relatives to do anything with him. He would not concentrate for long on any one subject. Owing to the trouble ho got into during the school days his mother induced him at the ago of ; 16 to go to New Zealand in order to take up farming, paying a heavy premium to a friend of the family, who promised to take charge of him. His waywardness again asserted’ itself, and after a short stay he returned to London. He soon made the acquaintance of girls of questionable character, and, in consequence, numerous complaints were received of his conduct. Many girls complained of having been robbed by him, and of having been forced by threats; to supply him with money. London eventually became too hot for him, and again his mother came to his rescue. Funds were placed at his disposal, and a passage booked for him to America.’’