HC Deb 01 March 1933 vol 275 cc368-70
41. Mr. McENTEE

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been drawn to the fact that Messrs. Foster, Wells, and Coggins, the solicitors of Lieutenant Baillie Stewart, are an Aldershot firm; and whether to assist this officer in the preparation of his defence and to minimise the expense, he will arrange for Lieutenant Stewart to be transferred from the Tower to Aldershot?

Mr. COOPER

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but it is not considered that it would be to the advantage of the accused officer to re-transfer him to Aldershot.

Mr. McENTEE

Is it not a fact that in the answer given to me last week the hon. Gentleman said that one of the principal reasons for transferring this officer from Aldershot to the Tower was to enable him to prepare his defence; and, in view of the fact that the solicitor actually lives at Aldershot, how does that square with the refusal to allow him to be near his solicitor, and will it not impose upon him the extra expense of bringing his solicitor to the Tower?

Mr. COOPER

While it is true that his solicitor is at Aldershot, his counsel is in London, and I should imagine that the expense of his counsel going to Aldershot would be higher than his solicitor coming to London.

Mr. McENTEE

Is it not a fact that the consultations will be with the solicitor and not with counsel, and, in view of that, will not the hon. Gentleman give this officer the opportunity to consult his solicitor under reasonable conditions?

Mr. COOPER

Every opportunity is given to him to consult with his solicitor, but it is obvious that his solicitor and counsel must keep in very close touch. That necessitates the solicitor and counsel meeting, and one of them must travel between Aldershot and London, and it is obviously to his advantage that the solicitor should travel to London, rather than that the counsel should travel to Aldershot.

Mr. MAXTON

What is the idea of the fixed bayonets business?

42. Mr. McENTEE

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Lieutenant Baillie Stewart has yet been informed of the charges against him and, if not, when the information will be furnished; whether he is aware that this officer had to perform his toilet under the guard of soldiers with fixed bayonets; and that he was refused the opportunity of consulting his solicitors before leaving Aldershot for an unknown destination?

Mr. COOPER

Yes, Sir, Lieutenant Baillie-Stewart has been informed of the charges against him. I am aware that an officer is present when the accused is shaving and that a sentry was present during the first few days of his arrest. As regards the last part of the question, the accused has been in continuous communication with his solicitors, although there may not have been an opportunity for him to consult them immediately prior to his departure from Aldershot.

Mr. McENTEE

May I ask why it is considered necessary, before a man has been found guilty of anything, that, when he is shaving with an ordinary safety razor, two soldiers with fixed bayonets should be on either side of him?

Mr. COOPER

Two soldiers were not present. In the early days a private soldier was present carrying the ordinary weapons which he would be carrying at any time. The commanding officer has replaced him by having an officer present while this officer is shaving. He is under a very serious and grave charge, and the reason must be obvious to every hon. Member of the House why the closest supervision is necessary.