HC Deb 26 March 1946 vol 421 cc196-7
34. Mr. Yates

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider setting up an independent judicial body to make recommendations for the readjustment of all courts-martial sentences which were imposed during the war and which are still being served.

Mr. Lawson

No, Sir. In accordance with the provisions of the Army Act, all sentences awarded by courts-martial are subject to mitigation, remission or commutation, on confirmation and review by the appropriate military authority I am satisfied that these provisions, in conjunc- tion with the present more lenient application of the policy of suspension of sentences awarded for military offences, are sufficient to ensure that no individual serves a longer sentence than the requirements of discipline demand.

Mr. Yates

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if many of these cases had passed through a judicial court far less severe sentences would have been imposed, and in view of the great anxiety and resentment being felt by people in this country, which is leading to difficulties in these prisons, will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to this matter?

Mr. Lawson

I have given much consideration to this matter. The House will remember that I made a statement last year which showed I had considerably mitigated these sentences. I will have a look at the sentences to see whether they are unduly heavy, but as far as I can see up to the present time, I do not agree that they are.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these men are serving long terms of penal servitude, and will he take steps to distinguish between those sentenced for purely military offences and those sentenced for ordinary crimes?

Mr. Lawson

I am glad my hon. Friend has made the distinction between the two types of sentences I will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Walkden

How can my right hon. Friend possibly consider details of all these cases which are tried by courts-martial, which would be comparable to the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice considering the details of all cases dealt with by benches of summary jurisdiction? How can he give a fair judgment in comparing evidence, in view of the other jobs he has to do?