View report page

28
vicious or criminal propensities and who require care, supervision and control for
the protection of others." When the Mental Deficiency Act, 1927, was passed, it
was thought probable that the revised definitions of defectives contained in the Act
would lead to an increase in the number of cases referred to the Council for ascertainment.
In fact, during 1928, information as to 753 cases of alleged mental defect
was received, as compared with 654 such cases during 1927. It is interesting to
note, however, that whereas it had been anticipated that the introduction of the
new category of "moral defectives" might lead to a large number of subnormal
criminals being referred to the Council, to be dealt with under the Mental
Deficiency Acts, up to 31st December, 1928, only three had been certified by
the Council's medical officers as coming within the new category.
Circumstances
rendering
defectives
subject to be
dealt with.
8. Section 2 amends the corresponding section of the principal Act, which
specifies the circumstances rendering defectives subject to be dealt with under
that Act. A defective is now subject to be dealt with if he is a person" with respect
to whom a representation has been made to the local authority by his parent or
guardian that he is in need of care or training which cannot be provided in his home."
During 1928, 32 cases were dealt with on this new ground, though in 30 of those
cases other grounds which rendered the cases subject to be dealt with existed. It
cannot be said, therefore, that the introduction of the new ground for action by the
local authority has as yet appreciably increased the number of cases with which
the Council has a duty t,o deal.
9. Section 2 also provides that, in the notification by the local education
authority of "special circumstances" cases, or of cases "about to be withdrawn
or discharged from a special school or class," the cases shall be such as would render
it desirable that they should be placed under supervision or guardianship or should
be sent to an institution. Under the Act of 1913, in "special circumstances" cases
the ground for action included only apparent need for supervision or guardianship
and not need for institutional care, while in cases" about to be withdrawn or
discharged from a special school or class "the ground for action did not include the
need for supervision. It was thought that these amendments might lead to a considerable
increase in the number of cases notified by the local education authority.
There were 351 notifications from that source during 1928, as compared with 280 in
1927—not a very considerable increase.
Defecti ves
found guilty
of a criminal
offence.
10. Section 5 deals with the procedure to be followed should it be found
impracticable to present a petition or should a petition be dismissed in respect of a
defective guilty of a criminal offence whom a court has directed to be dealt with
by way of petition or to be detained in a "place of safety" pending the presentation
of a petition. In such a case a defective is to be removed to a prison (or a place of
detention, as the need may be) in order that he may be brought before the court
again to be dealt with upon the original criminal charge. The administrative steps
which should be taken to give effect to this have been defined by the Board of
Control. During 1928, so far as London was concerned, only one petition in respect
of a case of the type referred to in section 5 was dismissed. In this case arrangements
were made for the defective to be brought before a stipendiary magistrate
on the same day, obviating the need for removing the defective to prison following
the dismissal of the petition.
Training or
occupation
of defectives.
11. Section 7 makes it an obligatory duty of a local authority to provide suitable
training or occupation for defectives who are under supervision or guardianship
or have been sent to institutions. A qualification is added, however, that training
or occupation need not be provided for a defective under supervision if a local
authority satisfies the Board of Control that there are, in that individual case, adequate
reasons for not doing so. During 1928, the Council gave careful consideration to
the steps to be taken to give effect in London to the provisions of this section. It
was assumed that all cases in institutional care were receiving such training or