HC Deb 21 March 1935 vol 299 cc1372-4
58. Mr. G. HALL

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any precedent for the Board of Admiralty reversing a verdict of not guilty found by a naval court; if so, will he give them: and whether, before this was done in the case of Rear-Admiral Bailey and Captain Tower, they were given any opportunity for making any defence, seeing that this overruling of the verdict of a judicial court by the executive authority to the detriment of the accused is opposed to the principles of British justice?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell)

There are many precedents for the course taken by the Admiralty. In particular, I would refer the hon. Member to the Admiralty's dissent from the findings of the courts-martial which acquitted the captains of the "Conqueror" and "Howe" in 1862 and 1893. On both those occasions the course which the Admiralty had taken was considered by the House of Commons and was approved. On the first occasion Lord Palmerston and on the second Mr. Asquith vindicated with great force the right and duty of the Admiralty, as the authority supremely responsible for the safety and discipline of the Navy, to pronounce their opinion in a matter touching the safety of His Majesty's ships, quite apart from any decision which a court-martial may have reached.

In reviewing the proceedings of these courts-martial, the Admiralty took fully into account the whole of the evidence, in which both the facts of the case and the contentions of the three officers concerned were perfectly clearly set forth. So far from admitting that the Board's action was open to the criticism contained in the last part of the question, I am satisfied that it was just, was in accordance with precedent, and was required in view of the Board's responsibility to the Navy and to the public.

Mr. HALL

May I ask the First Lord whether the precedent which he has quoted is the last precedent; also whether the naval officers who made up the court-martial were consulted by the Board before the Board arrived at the decision which has been announced; and what further action, if any, the Board intend to take against the naval officers concerned?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL

The second part of the hon. Member's question was, I think, whether the officers of the court were consulted before the Admiralty publicly dissented from their decision. They were not consulted; they were informed. As regards the last part of the question, the decisions of the Board have been announced by the Admiralty, and no further action is intended.

Commander MARSDEN

Was there not also a precedent on the occasion of the stranding of His Majesty's ship "Assistance" in the present century?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL

There are many precedents. Those I quoted were not the last precedents. There are many others.

Mr. MAXTON

Would it not be better to cut out these futile courts-martial if their proceedings are going to be overturned by the Board of Admiralty in this way?