§ At the end of Section fifty-nine of the Naval Discipline Act, which requires courts-martial to be held on board ship, the following words shall be added, "unless the Admiralty or the officer who ordered the court-martial in any particular case for reasons to be recorded on the proceedings otherwise direct, in which case the court-martial shall be held at such convenient place on shore as the Admiralty or the officer who ordered the court-martial may direct."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe general desirability of departing from the established practice of holding a court-martial on board ship was expressed by the Noble Lord. But he objected to the Court being transferred to any out of the way or distant place. He did not wish an accused person to be dragged to London, say. We never had that in mind, and I move as an Amendment, after the word "held," to insert the words, "at a port."
§ Lord C. BERESFORDThis is a very good Amendment. No doubt, in the circumstances of this War, it might be necessary to hold a court-martial when a ship was away. In war time there would be at a port officers qualified to hold courts-martial. I am sure the Service will be glad of this Amendment.
Mr. HEALYMay I ask whether the interest of an accused person will be prejudiced by the shifting of the tribunal? A man might prefer to be tried by his own officers. I can understand a sailor desiring to be tried by his own officers—men who have known him all the time he has been in the Service. Is it absolutely clear that a change of the tribunal, if it takes place, will not prejudice him?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI think the hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Any rights an accused man might have under the established law and the King's Regulations would not be prejudiced by the holding of the court-martial at a port.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDThe hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) has expressed a view, very kind and sympathetic to the prisoner. I would point out that men are never tried by their own officers. They are tried by naval officers. They can 1349 ask for an officer of their ship to come and give evidence of good character, but accused men are really tried by officers of other ships. In the case represented by the hon. and learned Member there could be no prejudice whatever, the Court would be held under the same circumstances of naval law.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLHow would the Clause as amended affect the case if the ship was in a foreign port? Would it be open to hold the court-martial in a foreign port? I understand that those on board a British ship are legally on British territory. I want to know whether the Clause as proposed to be amended will enable a British subject to be tried in a foreign port?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe question is a very important one. I think an accused person could be tried at a Colonial port, but I do not think he could be tried in a foreign port under this Clause as amended.
§ Mr. PETOMay I suggest that the Clause should be amended so that the court-martial could be held at any port in His Majesty's Dominions.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI will take care that the point shall have consideration, and, if necessary, whatever Amendment may be desirable shall be made.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLIt is rather important to make the matter perfectly clear, because difficult questions might arise in certain circumstances and in reference to certain points. For instance, in the case of an Egyptian port it might be difficult to say whether under the present status of Egypt such a port was or was not under the jurisdiction of His Majesty. It ought to be made quite clear exactly where a court-martial could or could not be held.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI agree that the point should be looked into.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDThe Court could not be formed in any foreign port. We should not have any naval officers there doing duty for the Fleet, but if the right hon. Gentleman puts that in it would make the thing quite clear.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.