Could a Former Schoolboy Bring His Headmaster to Justice?
The passage of time could make an already difficult prosecution considerably harder.
One of the more unusual suggestions arising from the case concerned the possibility of the injured pupil pursuing legal proceedings years afterwards.
Suppose, for example, that the boy’s parents had accepted the headmaster’s apology.
Suppose the boy himself remained dissatisfied.
Could he wait until adulthood and then seek to have his former headmaster prosecuted?
The suggestion prompted considerable disagreement.
In 1962, the age of majority in England and Wales was twenty-one. It was subsequently reduced to eighteen in 1970.
But the age at which a person became legally an adult was not necessarily decisive in reporting a criminal offence.
A child could report suspected criminal conduct to the police without waiting to reach majority.
The more difficult issue was whether sufficient evidence existed to support proceedings.
Years after an incident, witnesses might have forgotten important details.
Medical records might have disappeared.
Teachers could have retired or moved away.
Even the injured pupil’s own recollection might have become less precise.
The longer the delay, the greater the difficulties.
There was also the expense of a private prosecution.
Although an individual could, in certain circumstances, initiate criminal proceedings, doing so was not necessarily straightforward.
A determined complainant might need legal advice, assistance in gathering evidence and representation before the courts.
If the accused contested the allegations, the costs could become substantial.
One commentator argued that an ordinary young man would be unlikely to possess the financial resources necessary to pursue a complicated prosecution.
Another questioned whether the expense would truly be so prohibitive.
If the headmaster admitted the incident, might the matter not be resolved comparatively simply?
But that assumption raised a further difficulty.
Admitting that a punishment had occurred was not the same as admitting that a criminal offence had been committed.
A headmaster might acknowledge administering the cane while maintaining that the punishment was lawful.
The prosecution would still have to establish that the legal boundary had been crossed.
A further complication concerned the machinery of criminal prosecution.
Some later discussions mistakenly referred to the Crown Prosecution Service when considering events in 1962.
In fact, the CPS did not come into existence until 1986.
During the 1960s, the police played a much more direct role in bringing prosecutions, alongside other established prosecuting arrangements.
The Director of Public Prosecutions had existed since the nineteenth century, but the modern prosecution system was still some years away.
Thus the hypothetical case of a schoolboy seeking justice against his former headmaster was by no means simple.
There was the question of injury.
There was the question of lawful punishment.
There was the question of evidence.
And there was the question of whether the passage of time had made a fair trial impracticable.
The original incident might have lasted only a few minutes.
Its legal consequences, however, could have remained uncertain for years.
