§ 35 and 36. Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he will take immediate steps to confer by Statute a right of appeal, in the ordinary sense of that term, to a higher court from the decision of a court martial of first instance and from the award and order of a military and naval officer involving punishment;
(2) if he, in conjunction with other appropriate authorities, will take steps to inquire into the advisability of amending the Army Act, the Acts relating to the reserve and auxiliary forces and other relevant law, so as to make them more consonant with the needs and conditions of the present time.
§ Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the question of setting up military appeal courts on similar lines to the Court of Criminal Appeal, to which soldiers sentenced at a court martial may, if they desire, make an appeal against their sentences.
§ Mr. Jannerasked the secretary of State for War whether, in view of the position disclosed by the imposition of heavy sentences upon soldiers who were wrongly convicted, he will immediately promote legislation enabling every person serving in His Majesty's forces who is convicted of an offence by a service tribunal to appeal against the conviction 785 and/or penalty imposed to a court constituted of at least one civilian judge; and to provide that pending the hearing of the appeal the accused shall be entitled to apply to the High Court to be treed from detention if he is detained.
§ 93. Dr. Santo Jegerasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Armed Forces have altered much in character since 1881, he will consider altering the regulations covering the penal code in the Army, as set out in the Army Act of 1881 and its subsequent amendments, and in the notes thereto in the Manual of Military Law, in order to prevent a repetition of the recent paratrooper incident.
§ 104. Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will institute a review of the whole system of trial by courts martial; and an inquiry into the organisation, methods and efficiency in the Judge Advocate-General's Department.
§ Mr. BellengerThe suggestion that under the military code there should be a right of appeal to a court of appeal in the ordinarily understood sense of that term is not new. Two important committees, whose reports were laid before this House, have already considered the question. The first was the Committee presided over by the late Mr. Justice Darling, which sat in 1919, and deliberated in the light of the experience of the Great War (Cmd. 428). The second was the Committee presided over by Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C. (now Mr. Justice Oliver) which reported in 1938 (Cmd. 6200). Both these committees reported against setting up service appeal courts, and gave weighty reasons for their views, which are fully set out in their reports. I will not attempt to recapitulate those reasons here, but would point out that the Darling Committee considered that the existing system of automatic review of court-martial proceedings by the Judge Advocate-General, and further review on petition, furnishes a soldier convicted by court-martial with fuller safeguards against error at the trial than are available to a civilian convicted in a civil court.
However, as my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for War indicated in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang) on 4th December 786 last, it was always contemplated that an investigation should be undertaken in the light of recent war experience, and he suggested that it would be desirable to appoint a committee for this purpose a little later on, when the Judge Advocate-General and other staffs intimately concerned were less heavily pressed with current business. I agree with that view, and after consulting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, I now propose that a committee of similar standing to the Darling and Oliver Committees should be set up forthwith for this purpose. The exact composition and terms of reference of the committee will need consideration and I will make an announcement as soon as I can.
Questions relating to the administration of justice under naval law would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.
§ Mr. Hector HughesIn setting up that committee, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Acts referred to in Question 36 were passed at a time when the Army consisted of volunteer soldiers, and are quite unsuitable for the Army of today, which consists very largely of conscripted soldiers who cannot be said to have accepted the conditions laid down by those Acts?
§ Mr. BellengerI think that question is one which the committee would more properly consider.
§ Mr. JannerWould the right hon. Gentleman answer that portion of the Question set down by myself relating to the right of a soldier who has appealed against a conviction to apply to the court to enable him to be freed from detention, if he is detained, and will that be considered by the committee at the same time?
§ Mr. BellengerYes, I should think that that would be one of the matters to come under review by the committee.
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerWould the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the terms of reference of this committee will be sufficiently wide to enable them to consider the question of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of indictable offences, to take into account the question of men being kept under arrest for long periods before and after their court martial, and also the 787 question of whether some other form of trial than a court martial might not be more speedy and effective?
§ Mr. BellengerWhile not giving any specific undertaking, I would desire to make the terms of reference as wide as possible.
§ Mr. WalkdenIn setting up this committee, will the right hon. Gentleman give heed to the urgent need to include men of the lower ranks, who may have had difficulty with or perhaps been victims of a court martial, and who have had difficulties in having their cases re-examined? There are men of ability who could probably serve very well, as compared with major-generals.
§ Mr. BellengerNaturally I should desire to get the best possible committee of inquiry that I could.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir William AllenIn the course of the right hon. Gentleman's answer he has referred to two committees set up to consider appeals from courts martial. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both these committees made many recommendations that would have been most helpful both to courts martial and to prisoners, and that not one of these recommendations has been carried out by the War Office? When any committee is set up in the future will he see that such recommendations as it may put forward receive the attention of the War Office?
§ Mr. BellengerYes, Sir. I think I can give the assurance asked for by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the latter part of his question. We had better let the committee investigate and report, and then this House will be able to take suitable steps to see that I implement the document.