§ 5. Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Secretary of State for War, in reference to military courts of inquiry and courts-martial in Ireland, what is the practice in reference to the following matters: is cross-examination of witnesses allowed; are counsel permitted to be present; may they speak; is the Press admitted; are they required to submit their reports before publication; and is the evidence published officially or otherwise?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIn answering this question it is necessary to deal separately with courts of inquiry and courts-martial. In the case of military courts of inquiry, cross-examination of witnesses is not allowed, except where the character or military reputation of an officer or soldier is affected. Military courts of inquiry are in their nature normally private inquiries, but, unless there are special reasons to the contrary, and excepting in inquiries into purely military matters, counsel are at liberty to attend as representatives of parties directly concerned, and are at liberty to ask questions for the purpose of eliciting material facts. The Press may be admitted whenever deemed expedient. The Press are not required to submit their reports before publication. The evidence is not officially published. In the case of courts-martial there is in Ireland, as elsewhere, an absolute legal right to cross-examine witnesses, to be represented by counsel, and for counsel to address the court. The proceedings must be in open court, and the Press must be admitted unless the court order their exclusion in the public interest or for the due administration of justice. In Ireland the Press have been almost invariably admitted to the proceedings of courts-martial and have been permitted to publish full reports without submission to any authority, but have been requested to omit from their reports the names of witnesses, members of the court and prosecutors or prosecuting counsel. The evidence is not officially published, but 1683 the person tried has the right to obtain a certified copy from the Judge Advocate General.
§ Captain BENNWould the right hon. Gentleman say why no cross-examination is permitted in the case of courts of inquiry, and, secondly, why, in the case of the Mallow inquiry, it is stated that the Press were informed that they were only admitted on condition that they would submit their reports to the court?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI cannot answer, without notice, a specific question with reference to an individual inquiry, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at my answer, which is a very careful one, he will see that counsel in military courts of inquiry are entitled to ask questions.
§ Mr. ACLANDIs it not a fact that, with regard to some of these courts-martial in martial law areas, the Press are required to cut out all reference to some of the evidence given by some of the witnesses?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThey have been requested to omit the names of witnesses, the names of members of the court, and the names of prosecuting counsel, for the very obvious reason that these persons suffer if their names are mentioned.
§ Mr. ACLANDWhile agreeing about that, may I ask again whether they have not also been required to omit all account of the evidence given by certain witnesses?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI think not. That is covered by the general answer I have given. If my right hon. Friend wishes for an answer in regard to a specific case, I must ask for notice of the question.
§ Captain BENNWould the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question as to why the cross-examination of witnesses is not permitted? Does not he agree that cross-examination is sometimes necessary in order to elicit the full facts?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSCross-examination is permitted in courts-martial. In military courts of inquiry counsel are entitled to ask questions
§ Captain BENNApparently I have not made myself clear to the right hon Gen- 1684 tleman. Why are counsel in courts of inquiry such as the Mallow inquiry not permitted to cross-examine? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is desirable that cross-examination should take place if the full facts are to be brought into the light of day?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIn private inquiries, which courts of inquiry normally are, I do not think it is necessary, but in regard to courts-martial I entirely agree, and so it is provided.
§ Major MACKENZIE WOODCan the right hon. Gentleman refer us to any rule prohibiting cross-examination in that way?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI can refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the books, with which he is familiar, on military law.
§ Captain BENNWould the right hon. Gentleman please answer my question, why, in the case of the Mallow court, cross-examination was not permitted? Does he agree that it would have been desirable, and, if so, why was it not permitted?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI heard my hon. and gallant Friend make that assertion, but I cannot admit it, because I do not know the full facts of the Mallow inquiry. If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to ask a question about any individual inquiry, I must ask for notice of it.