HC Deb 17 April 1940 vol 359 cc944-6
15. Mr. T. Williams

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, on 2nd March, after the proclamation of the curfew in Tel Aviv about 12 o'clock mid-day, a boy named Mizrachi, aged 15 years, was arrested and fined 100 mils for curfew-breaking; that three days later he was rearrested on a charge of participating in a demonstration and carrying a banner, the same offence for which he had been fined, and was sentenced to 12 strokes, and that the sentence was carried out the same day although the defence asked for leave to appeal; and who was responsible for this injustice?

Mr. M. MacDonald

I understand that the boy in question was convicted by the District Officer under the Emergency Regulations of curfew-breaking and was fined 100 mils, which is the equivalent of two shillings. Subsequently he was charged before the Chief Magistrate at Tel Aviv with taking part in a riot contrary to the provisions of Section 81 of the Criminal Code Ordinance. The Chief Magistrate decided against the submission of the advocate for the defence that curfew-breaking and rioting formed the same act or omission, and sentenced the accused, against whom the police proved a previous conviction for theft, to be whipped. The advocate applied for postponement of execution of the sentence, but this was refused and the sentence was carried out. There is no appeal as of right in such cases.

Mr. Williams

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he calls a riot was merely a demonstration and that the boy was simply carrying a flag? Is it the traditional law and justice in Palestine now that a boy of 15 years of age can be charged twice with the same offence and can receive two separate punishments but be granted no right of appeal?

Mr. MacDonald

I cannot accept the statement that there were two punishments for the same offence. The magistrate took the view that the two offences were separate and that two punishments were therefore justified. With regard to the facts as to what the boy was actually doing, I have no doubt that all those were brought before the magistrate in his hearing of the case and that he gave what he considered to be the appropriate punishment.

Mr. Williams

Has the right of appeal been completely suppressed in Palestine, and, if so, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to substitute?

Mr. MacDonald

The right of appeal has not been completely suppressed, of course, but it has been the law for a long time that in such cases there is no appeal as of right.

Mr. Thorne

Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been punished, in days gone by, by receiving strokes of the birch?

Mr. MacDonald

That question does not really arise.

Mr. Williams

I desire to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies to this Question, I shall take the first opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.