17. Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Air what action he now proposes to take in the case of Mr. C. J. T. Pensotti, in view of the fact that this 590 officer has been exonerated by a committee of the Middle Temple of the charges on which he was convicted by a R.A.F. court martial in April, 1944.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas)Mr. Pensotti has already availed himself of the right of an officer or airman who considers himself aggrieved to petition against the findings and sentence of a court martial. He has submitted five petitions. Each of these was fully considered by the Secretary of State for Air at the time, in July, 1944, in September, 1944, in April, 1945, in June, 1945, and in September, 1946. The conclusions that there were no grounds which would justify a variation in the findings or sentence of the court martial were reached after consultation with the Judge Advocate-General and Law Officers of the Crown.
Although the inquiry by the Benchers of the Middle Temple held in November, 1944, was a domestic inquiry into the conduct of a member of the Bar and was not in any way the hearing of an appeal against the findings of the court martial, the then Secretary of State for Air naturally reviewed the case very carefully in the light of the observations made by the Benchers. After further consultation with the Judge Advocate-General and the Law Officers he again came to the conclusion that there was no ground to justify him in interfering with the findings or sentence of the court martial. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend is unable to take any further action in the matter.
Mr. Baker WhiteMay I ask why it is that a very eminent legal body, including, I think, three judges of the High Court, came to such a completely different decision on this case from that of the Judge Advocate-General? Does the Under-Secretary not think that, apart from this great difference, there are grounds for a good deal of further inquiry?
§ Mr. de FreitasI said in my answer that although the inquiry by the Benchers of the Middle Temple was entirely a domestic matter, the Secretary of State for Air of that time naturally reviewed the case very carefully and again took into consideration the views of the Judge Advocate-General and the Law Officers of the Crown.
§ Mr. Hector HughesDoes the Minister realise that there is a great difference between the body he referred to and the parliament of the Middle Temple, consisting of 19 lawyers experienced in sifting and weighing evidence, many of them High Court judges, who sat upon two separate occasions and thoroughly investigated this case? In view of that does the Minister not think that in order to see that justice is done to Mr. Pensotti there should be further inquiries?
§ Mr. de FreitasIt is not for me to enter into discussion on the domestic matters of the Middle Temple. At the inquiry no witnesses were heard.
§ Mr. TeelingIs it not true that at the inquiry definite reports of all that had been said by both sides were brought forward, and would it not be equally true to say that it is the King's Regulations only on which the Secretary of State for Air is working? Would it not be far better if in peacetime we could have a court of appeal in the Services?
§ Mr. de FreitasOn that point I have nothing to add to what has been said on behalf of the Secretary of State for Air by the Secretary of State for War as to the new committee of investigation which is being set up.
§ Mr. BerryAs this is not an isolated case of injustice arising out of courts martial in the Royal Air Force, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to have an inquiry made into the whole question of courts martial in the Royal Air Force?
§ Mr. de FreitasI have already answered that question.
§ Mr. Quintin HoggDoes not the hon. Gentleman think that the matter cannot be allowed to rest here? Does he not realise that the whole administration of public justice is brought into disrepute by a conflict of this kind, and would he not submit the whole question to some impartial inquiry, failing which we might have another Archer Shee case?
§ Mr. de FreitasMy right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for War, has set up a general committee of inquiry. In this particular case my right hon. Friend is unable to take any further action in the matter.
§ Mr. StephenWould the hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend the widespread feeling in the House that the commonsense way to deal with this particular case is to have a court of inquiry?
§ Mr. Martin LindsayIs it not a fact that when the Minister came to reconsider this case, the legal advice he had came from precisely the same source as was responsible for the prosecution in this case?
§ Mr. de FreitasNo, Sir. The Judge Advocate-General has remained the same but legal advice has come from the Law Officers of two different Governments.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterAs men should not be convicted where there is a reasonable doubt, is the Under-Secretary satisfied that there is no reasonable doubt in a case where a man has been cleared by a tribunal consisting of three High Court judges and a former Socialist Attorney-General?
§ Mr. de FreitasThere is no petition before the Secretary of State at this moment. The question of my opinion does not arise.
§ Mr. PrittWould my hon. Friend consider, in view of the widespread feeling that grave injustice has been done here, arranging for time of the House to be given to discuss this matter?
§ Mr. de FreitasIf it is a matter which is raised on the Adjournment, there could of course be no objection.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think we had better get on to the next Question.
Mr. Baker WhiteOn a point of Order. I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.