HC Deb 24 March 1927 vol 204 c536
6. Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the Report of the proceedings at the inquest at Kingston on Mr. James Robert-son Grant, of East Molesey, an ex-Air Force officer; and if he will cause further inquiry to be made info the circumstances under which this officer was wounded in France, when destroying unused bombs, with a view, if the facts appear to justify that course, of granting a pension to his widow?


I have seen a Press report of the proceedings in question. The circumstances in which the late officer sustained his injuries were fully known to the Ministry at the time he applied for retired pay, and when his application for retired pay was rejected by the Ministry he made no appeal against the Ministry's decision. The official reports on the case at the time of the accident show that the circumstances were not such as were suggested at the inquest. The accident occurred in 1919 after the conclusion of hostilities, while the officer was in the act of firing a rifle grenade outside his quarters in France. The grenade detonated prematurely and severely wounded him. It was no part of his duty to fire the grenade; indeed, this was not one of the authorised methods for the disposal of these explosives. Moreover, he had been specifically warned by a senior officer not to carry out his declared intention of firing the grenade, and his act involved grave risk not only to himself, hut to others in the vicinity. His commanding officer reported that he was to blame. In view of these facts an award of retired pay was definitely precluded by the terms of the Royal Warrant, and for the same reason his widow is not entitled to pension.

Forward to