HC Deb 12 April 1923 vol 162 cc1622-9

Section 49 of the Army Act is hereby repealed.—[Captain Captain Berkeley.]

Brought up, and. read the First time.

Captain BERKELEY

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Section 49 of the Army Act is the Section which provides for what are know as field general courts martial, and as far as I can trace the history of this particular kind of tribunal, it was introduced in the Act of 1893. This particular Section was put in that Act for the purpose of combining a form of procedure for trying offences committed overseas with the then existing summary procedure or drumhead court martial, as I think it was known. The result of this fusion of practice has been to create a court which functions in the following circumstances. Where a complaint is made to any officer in command of any detachment or portion of troops in any country beyond the seas or to the commanding officer of any corps or portion of a corps on active service, that an offence has been committed by any person subject to military law, then, if in the opinion of such officer it is not practicable for such offence to be tried by the ordinary general court martial, it shall be lawful for him to convene the court martial referred to as a field general court martial.

Just to summarise the kind of tribunal that is created, it is a body of officers of field rank brought together by the convening officer and exercising powers under special rules of procedure not related, except in one or two special cases, to the general rules of procedure governing courts martial, but exercising the full powers of a general court martial, including the infliction of the penalty of death. I submit for the consideration of the Committee that the state of things which gave rise to the creation of this particular tribunal has now ceased to exist. It is quite obvious that the original field general court martial was intended to meet the case where you had a small detachment of troops engaged in what you might call pioneering a country where there was not the ordinary convenience for obtaining the officers of necessary rank to constitute a general court martial. Of course, the constitution of a drumhead court martial for the summary trial of offences committed on the field of battle is familiar to everyone.

I shall best illustrate what I think is the real objection to this particular form of summary procedure—for, of course, one must recognise that some form of summary procedure is necessary to deal with these circumstances—by reference to a case that has come to my knowledge, of what was a very serious piece of injustice done to a man who is a constituent of mine, after the Armistice, but before the conclusion of peace. This particular man was employed in the Inland Water Transport. I have very little doubt that he was a bit of a "sea lawyer," as it is called, and I have no doubt that he caused certain annoyance to his immediate superiors, the non-commissioned officers in whose charge he was. I think he prided himself rather on a greater knowledge than they possessed of King's Regulations and other rights and privileges, and I am inclined to think his superiors were out to "do" for him.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Becker) and others to carry on a loud conversation the whole time that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham is addressing the Committee?

Mr. BECKER

On that point of Order I was certainly talking in rather a loud voice, but I was calling attention to the fact that the Members of the front Opposition bench were exchanging very loud conversation among themselves.

The CHAIRMAN

I was not aware of any individual talking particularly loudly, because there was such a general hum of conversation in the Committee. Perhaps hon. Members who have private confidences to exchange will do so in a lower tone.

Captain BERKELEY

I am sure there is no one who, if I can show a substantial injustice, would be more sympathetic towards having it put right than the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Becker). The particular man I had in mind was brought up one day charged with the perfectly trivial offence of trying to "wangle" an extra tin of condensed milk. It sounds a preposterous thing to bring to the notice of the House of Commons, but hon. Members will perhaps agree with me, later on, that there is reason for it. He was brought before his O.C., and was deprived of 21 days' pay. He refused to accept the award. He was told he had better accept it, as they did not want all the trouble of convening a court-martial to try such a trivial offence but he persisted that he was entitled, as he was, to a court-martial. Therefore, they called together a court-martial, who met and sentenced him to 28 days' field punishment No. 2, for the perfectly trivial offence of trying to "wangle" an additional tin of condensed milk. The man served his term of imprisonment.

The medical evidence showed that for some time he had been suffering from some defect in his feet which made him unable to march. When he was released from his field punishment, he was told by his non-commissioned officer to march and embark for a certain port. He said he was unable to march. He was told he must march, whereupon he said: "You had better take me to the guardroom; I cannot march." They court-martialled him again, charging him with disobedience of an order, and sentenced him to three years' penal servitude. The confirming officer reduced that sentence to six months' hard labour. The man was imprisoned. He asked to be allowed to appeal. He was told he must wait a certain time before his appeal could be forwarded. It was eventually forwarded, and the Director-General of Lines of Communication immediately remitted the punishment to 28 days' field punishment No. 2, which had already been served. What happened? The papers were lost, the man was sent from one gaol to another, and was finally taken, like a winkle out of its shell, out of the gaol at Nottingham. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who had the milk?"] I am very sorry to find that an hon. Member treats the matter as a joke, because I do not consider it funny at all. The man served four and a half months' imprisonment with hard labour, when his sentence had been reduced to 28 days' field punishment.

11.0 A.M.

Now comes the immediate connection of this story with my proposed new Clause. On behalf of this man, an appeal was made to the Government for special consideration, and I want to make it plain at the outset that I am not attacking the Government at all, or rather the late Government. The Government of the day were most generous. After a full investigation, the Army Council apologised, and the Government paid the man £350 compensation, but in the course of the proceedings these points were put forward on behalf of the man as reasons why the Government should take a favourable view of his case, and the Government did not take a favourable view of his case at all on account of these considerations, but from quite different considerations. The first consideration was this: Under the rules of procedure governing general courts-martial, an accused person is entitled—and it seems the most elementary justice that he should be entitled—to have a copy of the summary of evidence delivered to him in time to prepare his defence, and is entitled to be told the names of the witnesses to be called against him. That was one ground on which this man's case was put forward. With regard to that, it was replied, and replied perfectly correctly—I am not impugning the correctness of the reply—that that rule does not apply to the case of a field general court-martial, and though wherever possible effect is given to that rule of procedure there is nothing to compel the convening authority who brings the man to trial to give the man a summary of evidence. The next point is that under the rules of procedure governing general courts martial the accused is entitled to be defended by an officer. He is entitled to the assistance of counsel or a solicitor or an officer. This man applied to be defended by an officer. It was not found convenient, and that point of appeal also was rejected, because it was pointed out that the rules of procedure governing field courts martial do not give the accused the right to the assistance of an officer. Those are two specific points on which I would like to ask the Under-Secretary for War for an assurance that some regulation will be laid down, so that in future a man shall be entitled to be defended by an officer before a field general court martial. It ought to be given to the man as a right. It is not sufficient that where possible a summary of evidence should be given to the man. He, ought to have that also as a right. There are other irregularities of procedure with which I will not trouble the Committee and I thank hon. Members for having listened to me with such patience.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

The function of a field general court martial is by no means limited to pioneering wars. Possibly it may have been originally, but in present conditions it is essential that we should have a more summary procedure than the cumbersome method of a district general court martial to deal with cases on active service. Most officers who have served on courts martial will disagree with the hon. and gallant Member in considering a district court martial better than a field general court martial. The President at a district court martial spends nearly all his time filling forms and taking down evidence, and has no time to apply his mind to the evidence, while in the case of a field general court martial all this is simplified. There is no verbatim report taken, but merely a summary. It is a far more businesslike and efficient mode than a district general court martial, certainly on active service. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether we could not provide that an officer should be available to defend the accused before a field general court martial. It is a matter of universal practice already for a man to be defended by an officer if he asks for it and if an officer is available.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Cannot you make the practice the law?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

I am told that you will add nothing to the rights enjoyed by the accused if that were put into the rules. The summary of evidence, in the same way, is always given to the accused if it is taken, but there are occasions when it is impossible to take it; Field general courts-martial have sometimes to take place when troops are marching through enemy country, when perhaps there is a crime committed against the civil population by a force on the march. It is sometimes essential for courts to sit at once, and sometimes it occurs that there is no opportunity for a

SCHEDULE.
Accommodation to be provided. Maximum Price.
Lodging and attendance for soldier where meals furnished Tenpence per night for the first soldier and eightpence per night for each additional soldier.
Breakfast as specified in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Army and Air Force Acts. Sevenpence each.
Dinner as so specified Eightpence.
Supper as so specified Threepence.
Where no meals furnished, lodging and attendance, and candles, vinegar, salt, and the use of fire, and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating his meat. Tenpence per night for the first soldier and eightpence per night for each additional soldier.
Stable room and ten pounds of oats, twelve pounds of hay, and eight pounds of straw per day for each horse. One shilling and ninepence per day.
Stable room without forage Sixpence per day.
Lodging and attendance for officer Three shillings per night.
NOTE.—An officer shall pay for his food.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move in the paragraph beginning "Dinner as so specified" to leave out the word "eightpence," and to insert instead thereof the words "one shilling."

I have sat here for twelve hours waiting patiently for an opportunity to move this Amendment. In the schedule there is every year inserted a list of prices to be paid to innkeepers, and others who have soldiers billeted on them, for meals supplied to soldiers. The scale of prices for dinner and supper is insufficient. For instance the amount allowed for a dinner to a soldier, consisting of 1 lb. of meat before cooking, 8 ozs. of bread with vegetables and a pint of beer or mineral waters, is eightpence. These cannot be adequately provided for a soldier for eightpence. It may be urged that we do not want innkeepers to make a profit out of soldiers billeted on them, though if they did sometimes it would be for the greater comfort of the soldier. A second Amendment, which I have put down, deals with the price to be paid for supper supplied to a soldier. Their supper consists of 6 ozs. of bread, with one pint of tea with milk and sugar, and 2 ozs. of cheese according to the Schedule to the Act, and all that an inn- summary of evidence, and it would not be consistent with justice if it were laid down as a hard and fast rule that in all cases a summary of evidence should be taken. I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

keeper or other person supplying the meal is allowed for it is the sum of 3d. This is wholly inadequate, and I trust that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Mr. GWYNNE

Perhaps I may be able to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman some small comfort for his long wait, though I cannot give all that he wants. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong in saying that beer is included in the dinner. Though the figures which he has mentioned seem very meagre, yet it has been the immemorial custom to billet men on innkeepers at cost price. Profit has never been taken into account, and it would be very difficult at the present time, when economy is so necessary, to drop that principle. But it seems to me that the prices have been cut very close, and that exception may be taken to these figures, and that, instead of eightpence, tenpence should be allowed for dinner, and that an extra penny should be allowed for the price of supper. If we once give away the principles to which I have referred, and allow profit to the inn-keeper on the transaction, we would be opening a very wide door, not at the present moment, but in case of war. At present there are certain restrictions, the limit being three men for two nights. There has been no protest from innkeepers with regard to billeting. This extra threepence a day will be allowed, not as profit, but merely to cover variation in different parts of the country and the increase in prices.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

If the hon. Gentleman will move the necessary alteration I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: Leave out the word "eightpence," and insert, instead thereof, the word "tenpence."—[Mr. Gwynne.]

Further Amendment made: In paragraph beginning "Supper as so specified," leave out the word "threepence," and insert, instead thereof, the word "fourpence."—[Mr. Gwynne.]

Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Bill as amended, considered.