HC Deb 12 February 1930 vol 235 cc405-7
44. Mr. FRANK SMITH

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that cases have occurred in which the Attorney-General of Palestine has instituted proceedings in cases previously dealt with and dismissed by the courts in Palestine; will he give a list of the cases in which this power has been exercised and with what result; under what ordinance such action has been taken; and if he will consider the desirability of discontinuing the practice?

Dr. SHIELS

Under the Palestine Trial upon Information Ordinance, a person may be put upon his trial at the instance of the Attorney-General notwithstanding that a Magistrate has refused to commit him for trial. I am advised that the principle involved is not unknown to English law, and I see no reason to interfere with the administration of the law in Palestine. I am aware of one case of this nature that has occurred, but I am not in a position to furnish my hon. Friend with the list for which he asks.

Mr. SMITH

I have not asked a question concerning cases that have been committed for trial, but as to cases which have been more than once dismissed and in one particular instance after a lapse of 12 months?

Dr. SHIELS

Yes, I remember the case which the hon. Member has in mind, and we have gone fully into the matter, but, as I have said, we are not prepared to interfere at the present time.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that weakened confidence in the administration of justice in Palestine is a contributory factor to the unsettlement of that territory, and, if so, will he make inquiry in view of its importance?

Dr. SHIELS

No, Sir, I am not prepared to accept the hon. Member's statement.

53 and 54. Earl WINTERTON

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1), whether the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance is still in force in Palestine; whether it is based upon special powers analogous to those which have been conferred upon the executive in British India from time to time; and if he will cause a copy of the ordinance to be placed in the Library;

(2), what is the number of persons who have been tried for offences arising out of the disturbances in Palestine in August last; and how many of that number have been tried under the ordinary law of the land and how many under the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance, respectively?

Dr. SHIELS

The number of persons tried, as reported up to date, is 1,094, of whom 40 were dealt with by the Court of Criminal Assize, 200 by the District Courts and the remainder by summary jurisdiction. I cannot say how many were dealt with under the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance, which is a part of the ordinary law of the land. The original ordinance was passed in 1920 prior to the assumption by the Secretary of State for the Colonies of responsibility for Palestine. It has been amended on various occasions, the last being December, 1929. I shall be happy to place a copy of this legislation in the Library of the House.

Earl WINTERTON

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly answer the second part of question 53?

Dr. SHIELS

As far as I know the real difference between similar ordinances in India and in Palestine is that in India they have a time limit and have to be renewed, whereas this ordinance is part of the permanent law of Palestine.

Earl WINTERTON

Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that the ordinance in all other respects is similar to the Bengal ordinance for which Members of the present Government, the hon. Gentleman s own colleagues, so severely criticised the late Administration through me in the last Parliament?

Dr. SHIELS

No, Sir; I do not think it is the same as the Bengal ordinance. It is part of the permanent law of Palestine which is used when certain conditions arise from time to time.

Earl WINTERTON

I wish to give the hon. Gentleman notice that I shall put down another specific question on this point, so that we may know what is the real difference between these ordinances.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the continuation of this ordinance leads to very much unrest, in view of the fact that people can be arrested and brought to trial without having a solicitor or anyone to defend them.

Dr. SHIELS

I think I can get very good authority for the claim that the very opposite is the case.

Forward to