§ 18. Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that Neil Macdonald and Ewan Maclennan who were sentenced to four months' imprisonment at Lochmaddy Sheriff Court on 14th June, 1928, for occupying land, intimated an appeal against that sentence to the Second Division of the Court of Session; that they were arrested and placed in Inverness Prison in spite of the intimation of appeal; that a note for liberation pending the determination of the appeal was before the Second Division of the Court of Session on Wednesday, 27th June, who ordered the interim liberation of those two men; that the ruling of the Court was that the making of the appeal to the Court of Session suspended the warrant for imprisonment; upon whose instructions the warrant for imprisonment was acted upon in defiance of the appeal; and whether any compensation will be paid to the two men for their illegal confinement?
§ Sir J. GILMOURI am aware generally of the proceedings in this case and, in particular, that the Second Division of the Court of Session on 27th June ordered interim liberation of the appellants. Until the appeal is disposed of, the case is sub judice, and it would not be proper for me to make any statement regarding it.
§ Mr. MACLEANDoes the fact that the case is sub judice prevent the right hon. Gentleman from informing the House who authorised the warrant to be acted upon, and the men being put into prison when the Scottish law should be known to the Scottish Law Officers, that, pending an appeal, no man should be put into prison?
§ Sir J. GILMOURI think it is quite obvious that this matter is sub judice, and I cannot discuss it.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONCan the right hon. Gentleman say how long these men were illegally imprisoned and what disciplinary action he proposes to take against the officials responsible for this outrage?
§ Sir J. GILMOURNo, Sir. I have no information to show that they were illegally imprisoned, and, as the matter is sub judice, I cannot discuss it.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Court of Session has decided that these men were illegally imprisoned, and ordered their release?
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRSurely the question is not sub judice, whether these men were put in prison at a time that they ought not to have been put into prison when their appeal was under consideration. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman can give us an answer on that point?
§ Sir J. GILMOURAs I understand it, the whole question is before the Courts, and until it is decided it will be improper for me to discuss it.
§ Mr. MACLEANMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman how that part of my question which asks who authorised the execution of the warrant and the imprisonment of these men, upon whose instructions it was executed, can come under the sub judice part of his reply? The imprisonment of these men has been declared illegal, and I am asking who authorised the illegal imprisonment of the men. That is not sub judice, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to reply to that point, with the assistance of the Lord Advocate, a Law Officer of the Crown.
§ Sir J. GILMOURAs far as I know, this is a matter for the Court to decide.
§ Mr. MACLEANThe Court has decided.
§ Sir J. GILMOURNo, the Court has not decided, and, until the Court decides, there should be no interference from the hon. Member or myself.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMay I ask whether the Lord Advocate can tell us who really is to blame in this case? It is not a question of law, but a question of administration. As I understand it, these men have been released because they were wrongly imprisoned.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson)The interlocutor of the Court of Session, which I have seen, granted liberation ad interim. I have not all the papers in the case, but that, prima facie, is inconsistent with any suggestion that there was any illegal detention.
§ Mr. SHINWELLCan the Lord Advocate say whether in fact an appeal was 1148 intimated, and yet, in spite of that, the men were sent to prison?
§ The LORD ADVOCATEIt is difficult to discuss these questions by way of question and answer. With regard to the question of the hon. Member, the only report I have seen is a newspaper report of opinions expressed which is not part of the interlocutor of the Court. We are trying to get a full report. The actual judgment of the Court, however, prima facie, is inconsistent with any suggestion that the men were illegally detained. I can only speculate on what actually happened. On the point which the hon. Member has put, I know that, as far as the newspaper report went, one of the Judges seems to have indicated that the marking of the appeal was the time at which the interlocutor would be suspended, if it was held to be suspended. Even assuming that to be the decision of the whole Court, the marking of the appeal may not take place until some time after, and the men are automatically put in prison under a decision of the Sheriff; but it might have the effect of entitling them to get out of prison on the marking of the appeal. If you take it at its highest, it does not suggest that there is anything wrong in the men being put in prison as soon as the Sheriff has announced his intention.
§ Mr. MACLEAN rose——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Lord Advocate has given all the information that he can.
§ Mr. MACLEANI have a further question to put.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe cannot spend all the afternoon on this question. There are other questions on the Paper, and other hon. Members have an equal right to put them.
§ Mr. MACLEANI beg to give notice that I shall move the Adjournment of the House at the end of Questions.
§ Later——
§ Mr. MACLEANI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
The imprisonment of Neil Macdonald and Ewan Maclennan while an appeal 1149 against the decision of the Court has been lodged on their behalf.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis matter, obviously, does not come within the terms of Standing Order No. 10, which governs the conditions under which leave can be given to move the Adjournment of the House, and, therefore, I cannot allow the hon. Member to move.
§ Mr. MACLEANIs it not a matter of urgent public importance that the law of this country should be administered properly and without any sign of partiality and, as the Lord Advocate himself stated, in supplementing the reply given by the Secretary of State, that these two men had practically been imprisoned while their appeal was pending, and that an application had to be made on their behalf to the Court of Session to have them released until the appeal was heard, does not that constitute a matter on which some inquiry ought to be made and some discussion take place in this House? I put it to you, Sir, with all due deference, that when these two men have, on the admission of the Secretary of State for Scotland, been waiting to receive land since May, 1912, it surely is incumbent on this House to discuss the question of their being imprisoned in spite of an appeal which they have lodged, and, consequently, their illegal detention.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have listened to all that has been said on this case, and it is quite clear to me that it does not come within Standing Order No. 10.