HC Deb 10 October 1946 vol 427 cc366-73
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger)

I have now had an opportunity of considering the advice of the Judge Advocate-General on the proceedings of the field general court martial held in Malaya in August and September, 1946, for the trial of the 258 men of the 13th Parachute Battalion. This review has been carried out by the Judge Advocate-General, who is appointed on the recommendation of the Secretaries of State for War and Air, and holds his office under Letters Patent from the Crown. All courts martial at home and abroad, and petitions thereon which raise points of law, are finally reviewed in his office.

The advice I have received from the Judge Advocate-General with regard to this particular trial is that there was a number of irregularities of a substantial nature which may well have prejudiced the accused individually. These irregularities in his opinion rendered the trial as a whole so unsatisfactory that the convictions ought not to be allowed to stand. In the circumstances I feel bound to quash all the convictions on the charge of mutiny, and to relieve each of the accused of the consequences of his trial. Orders to this effect and for their release from imprisonment are being issued forthwith.

I would like to stress that I have followed this course of action entirely on legal grounds, and I am still satisfied that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to justify a charge of mutiny being preferred. Although it will be a matter for relief in many quarters that the men who were convicted should be relieved from the consequences of their trial, I must emphasise that there are proper means of representing grievances in the Army which must be followed if discipline is to be maintained.

Finally, I think the House will agree with me when I say that this case is an outstanding example of the way in which the processes of military law can operate quickly to safeguard the interests of justice.

Mr. Churchill

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it was that the Judge Advocate-General was not consulted and made acquainted with this procedure at an earlier period? The mutiny, or what is called a mutiny, although it seemed a very mild form of mutiny compared with some we have seen in our own time, occurred in May. All June passed. Am I not right in presuming that in June convening orders were given, or the question of bringing these men to trial, either individually or collectively, was discussed? Was not the Judge Advocate-General consulted at that time? What happened in June? What happened in July, when this matter was going on? What happened in August, when these men were still confined under the severe conditions of a tropical land? Why is it only now, when a great storm has been raised in the Press and Parliament, that the Judge Advocate-General is suddenly consulted, and the right hon. Gentleman has to defer to his legal opinion and say that the whole procedure from beginning to end is quashed for the ringleaders as well as the rank and file—all their trials are quashed? How is it that for five long months the Government, with the advice of the Judge Advocate-General always available at their disposal, have permitted this matter to drag itself out to the general suffering of individuals and the impairment of discipline in the Army?

Mr. Bellenger

The right hon. Gentleman himself has held the Office which I now hold, and he is very well acquainted with the machinery of courts-martial procedure. He will know that even in an individual case there has to be a considerable time in taking a summary of evidence before the accused can be brought to trial. In this case there were 258 men and more—cases in which individual investigations had to be made and their defending officer instructed. I do not think, looking back, that any delay was made in bringing these men to trial. The mutiny occurred on 14th May, and the trial commenced on nth August. In the circumstances, I think, with the large numbers of accused, that that was not an unreasonable delay. In regard to the Judge Advocate-General, his deputy was there in Malaya, and he had full powers to advise the Commander-in-Chief and also the court. In view of the position of the Judge Advocate-General as the final reviewing authority on matters of law, I think that it would have been very improper if he had interfered at any stage in the proceedings.

Mr. Churchill

Are we to understand then that the then Secretary of State for War was officially apprised of the fact that action was to be taken against 258 men on a charge of mutiny—a collective trial as it were—and he never had any idea of asking "Is this legal? What precedents are there for this?" Are we to understand that he never asked the Judge Advocate-General, "Is this all right? Is this a legal and proper way of doing it? and that no member of the Government or of the Army Council promoted inquiries of that kind? The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that I have had experience of these matters. I unhappily presided over the Army when there was a shoal of mutinies. No one ever attempted to bring large masses of the rank and file to a mass trial. There was the naval mutiny in the days of Ramsay MacDonald's Premiership, and no one thought of bringing great masses to trial. Why was this not settled by the Government and the Cabinet at the time?

Mr. Bellenger

I still adhere to my view that the Government as a Government ought not to interfere in judicial matters of this nature. Moreover, there was the Deputy Judge Advocate-General out in Malaya, and surely he should have been the authority to safeguard the course of justice.

Mr. Garry Allighan

While expressing what is the feeling of most Members of this House—gratification at the humane decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War—could I also ask him whether the proceedings at the court-martial will be made available at the Stationery Office and in the Vote Office to the public and Members of this House, respectively?

Mr. Bellenger

No, Sir.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Could we not be given some indication of what these irregularities were, so that the House may be fully acquainted of the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman has come to his decision? Further, is it not the case that the official to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred in his statement serves under the Judge Advocate-General in this country?

Mr. Bellenger

I am not quite sure as to the precise implication of the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question. With regard to the reasons for the Judge Advocate-General's advice to me, I am not prepared to offer them to the House in detail. I am satisfied that the statement I have made this afternoon, that the Judge Advocate-General considered that there were a number of irregularities of a substantial nature, which may well have prejudiced the accused individually, gives sufficient indication of the grounds on which he has based his advice.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to state them in detail. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Oliver Committee, reporting in 1938, recommended that the Judge Advocate-General should give his reasons for refusing to allow a petition? Does it not follow from that that it is equally desirable that there should be some indication of the grounds on which the Government reached their decision?

Mr. Bellenger

I am not aware of all the details of that Report although I have read it. This, however, is not a case of a petition. It is a case of proceedings of a court martial coming before the Judge Advocate-General for review. In the ordinary way every case does. He gave me certain advice, and I accepted it.

Mr. Churchill

Is there any reason whatever why Parliament should not know and—

Mr. Speaker

I had called another Member.

Mr. James Callaghan

Will my right hon. Friend take very great care to see that in any forthcoming court martial of those responsible for conditions at this camp—and they are really responsible for this court martial—there should be no irregularities?

Mr. Bellenger

There will be no further court martial in connection with this matter.

Mr. Martin Lindsay

While we are all glad, on humanitarian grounds, that these men have got off owing to illegal irregu-laxities, is the Minister aware that if adequate steps had been taken when the first Royal Air Force mutiny took place, this mutiny would not have occurred? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that the proper step he has now taken is not regarded in the Services either as an act of clemency or an act of weakness which will cause similar occurrences?

Mr. Bellenger

I hope it will not, but some of the questions which have been addressed to me rather indicate that some attempt is being made to persuade the Services that this decision has not been come to on purely legal grounds.

Mr. H. D. Hughes

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that adequate inquiries will be made, and disciplinary action taken, if necessary, in regard to those responsible for the conditions in the camp, and responsible for the irregularities in the procedure which have caused so much suffering to so many people?

Mr. Bellenger

The House will understand that these irregularities are not only military irregularities. Now and again they occur in civil proceedings. Two courts of inquiry have already been held into the conditions in this camp, and, already, certain action has been taken against those who we think were mainly responsible for not rectifying those conditions.

Mr. Churchill

Is there any reason why the irregularities which the Judge Advocate-General has now considered were such as to vitiate the trial should not be stated? I do not mean at this moment, but why should they not be made public? Surely it would be of great advantage to the future to know what are the principles on which we are proceeding. Since when has it been held to be disadvantageous to the cause of justice for the principles on which judicial authorities give their decisions to be made known? If that is not so, how are others to regulate their conduct? Was the question of the mass trial one of the causes of the irregularity? In any case, will not a full statement be made of the legal grounds which have led to the quashing of these sentences?

Mr. Bellenger

I am prepared to consider whether it would be possible to give a more extensive explanation of the reasons which the Judge Advocate-General has given to me and which led him to believe that these convictions could not stand

Mr. Churchill

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That, I am sure, would be advantageous from every point of view. The quashing of a trial is a very serious matter. People ought to know why.

Mrs. Braddock

In view of the fact that a lot of us have very definite information that there was deliberate provocation of the men in this matter, will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that the way complaints can be dealt with is altered? For instance, it is well known in the Army that a man has to do a job before he complains, and that when he has done it, and complains afterwards, he is told that because he has done it there is no reason for the complaint. Will my right hon. Friend see that something different is done, and will he ask for the whole of the information which is at the disposal of Members of this House in regard to the commencement of the mutiny?

Mr. Bellenger

I can assure the hon. Lady that soldiers know very well how they can complain. It might be of interest to her to know that I am receiving from Members of Parliament 600 letters a week complaining about their soldier constituents.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Will the Minister look at the situation which has been disclosed in the Judge Advocate-General's Department, where there is apparent lack of organisation and method? From what he has said today it appears that the Deputy Judge Advocate-General in Malaya informed the Commander-in-Chief that the proceedings were legal, whereas the Judge Advocate-General in London took the reverse view.

Mr. Bellenger

Without accepting entirely the point made by the noble Lord, obviously I shall look into the Judge Advocate-General's machinery.

Mr. Speaker

I must point out to the House that this is all cutting into the time of Scotland, and there will be another grievance from across the Border if we are not careful.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones

May I be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question? Will he inquire into the present conditions under which our men are serving in Japan?

Mr. Hector Hughes

As it now emerges that the sufferings of these unfortunate men were due to irregularities on the spot in Malaya, will my right hon. Friend say whether he is considering making some compensation to them for the sufferings which they have endured?

Mr. Bellenger

I think that the result which I have announced this afternoon is a very substantial compensation

Air-Commodore Harvey

Will the right hon Gentleman give an indication as to what the future of these men is to be? Are they to be given a chance to serve in another command, and not in the present command?

Mr. Bellenger

I would hope that the future of these men is the future of all good soldiers—that they will be good soldiers and serve their time in the Army and come out with an honourable discharge.

Squadron-Leader Fleming

Will the Minister tell the House why it was agreed by the Deputy Judge Advocate-General that all these 240-odd men should be defended by only one defending officer, instead of being defended individually, as they were entitled to be?

Mr. S. Silverman

In view of the critical nature of many of the questions, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is the view of many of us that, having regard to the time that had elapsed and having regard to the date of the convictions, the Judge Advocate-General acted with speed and expedition in this matter, such as to entitle him to the congratulations of the House?

Mr. Speaker

I hope that we shall now get on with the Business.