NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeal to Military Court of Appeal.) (Hansard, 27 March 1917)

§ General IVOR PHILLIPS
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
In the Army Act the greater part deals entirely with punishments by courts-martial. There are two Clauses which I look upon as the Soldiers Charter—Clauses 42 and 43. I referred to this matter on the Second Reading, and gave notice that I would move this new Clause. When the Army was a purely voluntary Army, the men voluntarily placed themselves under this strict military discipline. Now that it is a compulsory Army, it seems to me more than ever necessary that these two Clauses should be elabo- 384 rated, and that officers and men in the Army should be given a further right to appeal from any decision that may be given against them in respect of any grievance they may have. The Army Act deals with every minute detail of pay, leave, promotion, and discipline, but if a man feels himself wronged in any of these matters he can only get redress under these two Clauses.
They are the only two Clauses in the Bill which really give the officer and soldier any rights of redress whatever. As I have said previously. I think it is necessary that I should bring this matter forward as so many bad cases have occurred recently. There was the case of the young officer who could not get justice, and we had to pass a special Act of Parliament in this House to enable him to get justice. That was a serious case, but I can assure the House that there are numbers of cases in which officers and men do not get the justice to which they are entitled. They can only refer to their Commanding Officer and through him to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. If he decides against them there is an appeal to the Army Council, but that only means the same papers are brought up again. Some further Court of Appeal should be given to officers and soldiers. The Under-Secretary of State said in his reply the other day that officers had an appeal to the King as a final resort. I am sure every officer would be only too willing to have his case tried by His Majesty, but we all know that is not possible, and it only means that it is the Army Council over again.
What I should like to see is a special Court of Appeal, and I suggest that it should consist of five members, two of whom should be military officers, one a judge of the High Court of Justice, and two persons holding no official appointment whatever. It would be very similar to the Court of Inquiry recently set up in the case of the young officer, who won his case in this Court, and got complete justification, and was re-established entirely. It has been suggested that this would bring officers back from the front. I am not a lawyer, but I understand the Court of Appeal does not have the whole of the witnesses before it. I do not think that is at all necessary. My idea was that the case should be written out, that the aggrieved party should submit his case, and that the Court of Appeal should have all 385 the documents in front of them. I do not think a reasonable reply has been given to my Amendment, and I think a Court of Appeal is necessary to keep up the discipline of the Army now that it has got to such a large size.

§ Major NEWMAN
I have much pleasure in seconding the Motion.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
As my hon. Friend says, he has placed the considerations before the House on one or two occasions. I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment. I will promise my hon. and gallant Friend that it shall receive, if not during war time, in peace time, the consideration which it deserves.