SOLDIER'S DEATH. (Hansard, 2 December 1941)

§ Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
We have been debating to-day proposals to extend the powers of conscription in the military Services. I want to raise with the War Office the question of the death of a young volunteer soldier in circumstances which, prima facie, amount to nothing short of murder. I have requested the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to hold an inquiry, and he has refused to do so. If he persists in that refusal, then the War Office will be assisting in the hushing-up of a capital crime. I want to recite to the House the undisputed facts before making any comment upon them. The man concerned is named James Grogan. He used to live with his parents at 11, Hale View, Huyton Quarry, near Liverpool. At the date of his death, he was regarded in the 1097 Army as being 21 years of age. In fact, he was only 19, and he had already served three years in the Army, for the most part in India. It is obvious that the mistake as to his age was the boy's own fault, he, no doubt, having stated a higher age in order to enable him to volunteer—we are dealing with a peace-time volunteer, not with a war-time conscript.
After serving in India, his regiment came back to this country. He applied for leave. Leave was refused. He did what was no doubt very wrong—he absented himself without leave. He went to Liverpool, and remained there for three or four, or five, weeks. At the end of that time, he surrendered himself to the Liverpool police, reporting himself as an absentee without leave. That was on 17th March, 1940. He was detained in Liverpool, awaiting a military escort, for seven days. He was then within a very few miles of his home. If he had desired to escape, that was his opportunity. More than that, if he had desired to escape, he need not have reported him self to the police at all. He could have waited until someone found him. He did not do that. He was a volunteer into the Army in the first place; although an absentee without leave, he voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities. He was detained in Liverpool for a week. There was no question up to that point of attempting to escape. On 24th March, a military escort arrived for him. It took him to a camp— I will not particular, except to say that it is in the South, more than 200 miles from his home. He arrived in that camp at 11 p.m. on 24th March. At 9 a.m. on 25th March he was dead.
The next morning there was an inquest, held by the local coroner. The Army was represented by a local solicitor, instructed, no doubt, by the local Army authorities. The only witnesses called were those responsible for the man's custody and for his safety—and responsible, according to the verdict of the corner's jury, for his death. The boy's parents were not there; and could not have been there. because they were not told in time. They were not legally represented, because they had no opportunity to be legally represented. The witnesses giving evidence before the jury were not cross-examined in any way, although their evidence cries aloud to any professional eye for cross-examination. I would like to read part of the account of the prin- 1098 cipal witnesses; but, first, I would like to read the doctor's description of the injuries. This is what he found: Externally—upper and lower lips swollen and bruised; ragged lacerations ½ inch long and ¼ inch deep on the inner surface of the lower lip. Slight bruising round both eyes and over right temple. Some scratches on chin, cheek and behind right ear. Super bruise over outer aspect of left clavical. One on the outer side left arm. One on outer aspect left elbow One on near aspect of left forearm. All to the face and arms. Here is the man who inflicted the injuries, and here is his own account, not cross-examined, not checked, not challenged: At 11 p.m. on the 24th Private Grogan was handed over to me by an escort. About 20 minutes after I received him I searched him for cigarettes, money or matches which was my duty. He became violent during the search and two regimental military police helped me whilst I finished the search. What in the world caused that boy who voluntarily surrendered himself to become violent when he was 200 miles away from home and lodged in custody and hand cuffed? After I had finished the search Grogan was let go and became quiet. That is to say, we are now at half-past eleven. About 11.45 I was going to take Grogan over to the cookhouse for some food. Look. This man had arrived at 11 o'clock, had been searched and was violent during the search, at 20 minutes past 11 and for some minutes after while the search lasted, say, until half-past 11, and then at a quarter to 12, 15 minutes before midnight, this soldier and gentleman decided that he would take his violent prisoner over to the cookhouse to get him a meal. Why did not he bring the meal to the violent prisoner instead of taking the violent prisoner to the cookhouse? But that is his story: About 11.45 p.m. I was going to take Grogan to the cookhouse for some food, and we got out into the passage. Out of the cell into the passage. There were three of them here—this man and two others behind. This boy who had volunteered in peace-time into the Army, who had served three years, who had surrendered himself voluntarily, who had not sought to escape when he was within a few miles of his home, when he was 200 and more miles from his home and alone, when he was handcuffed, at a quarter of an hour before midnight, when he was 1099 taken out into the passage, attempted to escape, if this man is to be believed. We got out into the passage, when he became violent again, hit me on the body and tried to get away. He tried to get away out of the passage with a soldier next to him and two soldiers behind him, and handcuffed. Seeing he might escape"— Notice, no allegation that he was trying to escape— Corporal Grundy, who was next behind me, came to help me. Either Grundy or I struck out some blows. I am not sure which went home on Grogan but he went down on the floor. We dragged him into another room and laid him on the bed in that room. He was then "— And this is a corporal of the Military Police speaking— in a knocked out state. But in 10 minutes he came round and asked for some water which he was given. Apparently during that 10 minutes nobody did anything for him. He goes on: About 20 minutes later I went to see him. He sat up in bed and used abusive and filthy language. Does anybody blame him, I wonder. The statement goes on: He then sank back on the bed and I thought he had gone to sleep as he was snoring. He was not snoring. This was the stertorous breathing of a man suffering unconsciousness due to internal bleeding into the brain. The story goes on: I told the duty officer that I thought Grogan would be all right. At 7 a.m. on the 25th I went to wake him and could not rouse him. His face was swollen and he seemed rather bad. At 7.45 I sent for an ambulance which did not arrive so I put him on a stretcher and took him to the medical inspection room and that was the last I saw of him. The medical inspection room could do nothing for him so they put him on an ambulance but before they could get him to hospital he was dead. A number of his comrades wrote to the boy's parents. They made certain allegations, and when I asked the right hon. and gallant Gentle man the Secretary of State for War about them he said, "Oh yes, I know about that, but these soldiers deny they knew what they were signing." But our in formation about this matter comes from the letter they did sign, and the more remarkable thing is that since the right 1100 hon. and gallant Gentleman gave that answer half a dozen of this man's comrades have written again to the boy's parents saying how glad they are that the parents are not letting the matter drop.
I would like to call the hon. Gentle man's attention to a letter. I obtained from the coroner a copy of the depositions, and I had some correspondence with the coroner. On nth October, under the coroner's signature, he said that Grogan, that is, the boy's father: is convinced that this is a case of murder. I had that possibility in mind when I called the jury and it is just possible that it amounted to manslaughter. But it is one of those cases where the defence has all the evidence on their side. At any rate the jury said it was justifiable homicide and it is only for me to record their verdict. The jury said that it was justifiable homicide while attempting to escape, but there is not one word of evidence of attempting to escape. Why was all the evidence on one side? Will the hon. Gentleman say why the inquest was rushed? Will he say who instructed the solicitor to act for the military? Will he say way no application was made by the military authorities themselves to the coroner to adjourn the inquest to enable the boy's relatives to be present and to be represented if they chose, to search for other evidence and present it to the jury? Who was it that insisted that the inquest; should be held in that manner, with evidence from only one side and with legal assistance to only one side, with the relatives not present, not represented, and not informed until it was all over? I say that on the case as it stands, that it is murder, or at the very best manslaughter. It might be that more investigation, a full and open inquiry, would demonstrate that it was nothing of the kind. If that be so, it is as much in the interest of the soldiers concerned as of the relatives to have that inquiry and to demonstrate their innocence. It is as much in the interest of the War Office, it is as much in the interest of the nation, to have the inquiry so that ho one can be entitled to say that this thing was hushed up and not properly investigated or inquired into. If, on the other hand such an inquiry showed that this boy, who was entitled to look to his guards for protection, was killed by them without lawful authority or excuse, who is there in the House, in the Department, or in the country who would say that 1101 those soldiers ought not to stand their trial for what has happened as much as any civilian and as much as would happen in any other circumstances? I appeal to the Minister, in the interests of everybody concerned, and whatever may be the ultimate truth to be established, to hold a full and open inquiry with all sides represented, so that the truth may be established.

§ The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys)
I must apologise to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) if I am not in a position to answer all the questions he has put to me. As he knows, the War Office is now extremely scattered, the notice that this question was to be raised was very short, and I received the papers of the case only about ten minutes before the hon. Member began to speak. I will, however, try to answer him to the best of my ability in the short time available. The facts which the hon. Member said were undisputed I must in some respects dispute, particularly the suggestion that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War has refused an inquiry. As I will show, there have been extensive inquiries into this case by both the military and the civil authorities.
It is needless for me to say how distressed the War Office are, whatever the circumstances, that a soldier should meet his death in this most regrettable and unnecessary fashion. We are naturally extremely grieved that this accident should have happened. But the question of guilt is another matter.
This is what occurred. Private Grogan did not absent himself, without leave, as the hon. Member suggested. He was, in fact, under arrest when he left his unit, and he was awaiting a charge. He escaped by striking a military policeman over the head with a steel helmet with such violence that he knocked him unconscious. Those were the circumstances in which Private Grogan absented himself. Subsequently, he handed himself up to the civil police in Liverpool, and returned under escort to his unit. There he violently resisted search, as the hon. Member said—

§ Mr. Silverman
I said it was alleged that he did so.

§ Mr. Sandys
The hon. Member says it was alleged, but I think it is undisputed 1102 that he resisted search, and that on being conducted away from the room in which he had been searched, for the purposes of getting some food, he again attempted to escape. In the course of trying to escape, he used considerable violence in order to get away from the military police, and they in their turn used violence in order to prevent him escaping. A struggle ensued, about which there seems to be very little evidence. There was a rough and tumble, and Grogan was struck by the military policeman. He fell down and was seriously hurt, and, as the hon. Member has said, he died the following day. There was a post mortem, an extract from which the hon. Member read The hon. Member quoted the description of the man's injuries, but he did not go on to quote the opinion of the pathologist as to the cause of death. I will read the evidence of the pathologist. He was of the opinion that the injuries were caused by external violence either by a blow or a fall or hitting the head against the wall. The superficial in juries were not in themselves fatal. Death was due to haemorrhage into the internal brain. The pathologist did not think this bleeding was due to natural causes in a healthy young man and in his opinion was the result of some external violence. He thought haemorrhage indicated a moderately severe degree of violence and that it is possible that the injury might have been caused by a direct blow with the naked hand. Severe violence may do internal damage without fracture of the skull. The pathologist further thought that either a blow or a fall could cause such injuries, and that the various injuries might be compatible with having a rough and tumble.

§ Mr. Silverman
Nobody alleged any fall.

§ Mr. Sandys
It has been alleged that during a rough and tumble the man fell down.

§ Mr. Silverman
Not in the evidence.

§ Mr. Sandys
I have not the time to give the hon. Member any more details.

§ Mr. Silverman
It is not in the sworn evidence.

§ Mr. Sandys
As regards the inquest, the War Office cannot take any responsibility for the time or date at which it was held. It is entirely a matter for the coroner. The military authorities merely complied with whatever instructions were given. The verdict at the inquest was "justifiable homicide." Subsequently a court of 1103 inquiry was held, a full and proper court of inquiry, in accordance with military law.

§ Mr. Silverman
With parents represented?

§ Mr. Sandys
The parents were not in a position to give evidence as to the manner in which the soldier died.

§ Mr. Silverman
Were they not entitled to be represented and to cross-examine evidence?

§ Mr. Sandys
All I can say was that it was held in accordance with the Regulations for the holding of military courts of inquiry. In the opinion of the commanding officer, that is, the opinion of the court, the evidence showed that The deceased died as a result of injuries received on attempting to escape. Injury was due to the deceased being struck by a military police officer while deceased was attempting to escape from custody, so dying by justifiable homicide. The court of inquiry was undoubtedly influenced by the coroner's court, and properly so. The hon. Member might conceivably say that the court of inquiry was 1104 biased, but I am not prepared to admit that. The military authorities, however, considered whether there; was a prima facie case to prosecute the military police man concerned. The Director of Public Prosecutions was consulted. He went very carefully into the case and decided there was no evidence sufficient to support a criminal charge. Thereupon the military authorities, having received this opinion from the Director of Public Prosecutions, inquired into the possibility of preferring a lesser charge under the Army Act. The matter was submitted by the War Office to the Commander-in-Chief, Scottish Command, who went into the whole case extremely carefully. He obtained reports from both the Divisional Commander and the Brigade Commander, the immediate superiors of the commanding officer concerned. As a result, the Commander-in-Chief reported as follows: I consider that no disciplinary action should be taken against Corpl. Fox or L/Corpl. Grundy (the two military policemen concerned).