HC Deb 15 October 1946 vol 427 cc796-800

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

87. Mr. MANNINGHAM-BULLER.

—To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will now state what were the irregularities which invalidated the trial of 243 soldiers in Malaya, or publish a White Paper setting them out.

97. Mr. WYATT.

—To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will give full particulars of the irregularities which invalidated the proceedings of the court-martial of personnel of the 13th Parachute Battalion.

Mr. Eden

A little earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for War referred, on more than one occasion, to the reply he was going to make to Question No. 87, in which there is general interest in all parts of the House. Unhappily, Sir, the Question has not been reached, and if the Minister is willing to give the answer now could that be arranged for the convenience of the House?

Mr. Bellenger

I am perfectly willing to give the answer to Question No. 87, which I will answer with Question No. 97.

There is nothing irregular in the holding of a joint trial as such, in the case of mutiny or any other offence the essence of which is combination between the accused. In a case of mutiny it would generally be convenient for a joint trial to be held, but where the number of accused is very large and where several incidents are involved it must be ensured that injustice does not result from such mass trial. Great care has necessarily to be taken that the trial is so conducted as properly to safeguard the interests of individual accused both as to the manner in which evidence is given and as to the guidance afforded to the court on the extent to which the evidence of one accused may be taken to incriminate or exculpate co-accused.

It was in the following respects that serious irregularities occurred in the course of the trial in Malaya:

In the first place, evidence in the majority of cases was allowed to be taken from spokesmen of groups, a method not in accordance with the Rules of Evidence

Secondly, the Judge Advocate acting at the trial misdirected the court in law as to the bearing of the evidence in its application to each individual case.

Thirdly, he failed to deal with the case of each accused individually on its own facts.

In short, the evidence was neither elicited nor applied in such a way as to establish either the guilt of those who were really guilty or the innocence of all those who were really innocent. There was thus no assurance that justice had been done, and in view of the legal opinion I had received that the convictions ought not to be allowed to stand, I felt it my duty to quash the proceedings.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him how many defending officers were employed to defend these 243 men, and whether it was not realised at the outset that any Judge Advocate would have difficulties in dealing with a case in which there were 243 accused? Further, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Judge Advocate-General's Department in London were consulted before this record number of men were put on trial?

Mr. Bellenger

The answer to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is: One defending officer. The answer to the second part is that I have dealt with the Deputy Judge Advocate- General's Department put there realising the necessity for adequate defence—

Mr. Manningham-Buller

No, my second point was whether, in view of the number of men involved, the Judge Advocate-General's Department in London was fully consulted before the men were put on trial?

Mr. Bellenger

No, Sir, I do not think so. The Deputy Judge Advocate-General in India was a very experienced officer in matters of this nature, and it was thought that he was fully able to deal with the situation.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the Department was not consulted before the trial?

Mr. Bellenger

I should not like to give a specific answer to that question without notice.

Mr. Pickthorn

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, in view of what he said, which must reflect on the Deputy Judge Advocate-General concerned, ought there not, in the interests of justice to him, apart from other considerations, to be an opportunity of judging how serious the irregularities were? Second, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us at what date in his office it was (a) suspected, and (b) known, that there were irregularities so serious as perhaps to involve invalidity?

Mr. Bellenger

If I may answer the last point first, I think it was when the proceedings of the court martial were received in this country. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I have called for a full report on this case.

Mr. Pickthorn

Can we have an assurance that when a full report of the case is received there will be an opportunity for us to see what the irregularities were?

Mr. Bellenger

I think I have indicated clearly today what the irregularities were. I am satisfied that the decision I took was the only one I could have taken.

Mr. Wyatt

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that instructions will be given that no further mass trials should take place without reference to London first?

Mr. Bellenger

I sincerely hope that there will not be any other occasion for a mass trial.

Mr. Wyatt

Will my right hon. Friend answer my question?

Mr. Bellenger

It is purely a hypothetical question. I should prefer to answer the question as it arises, but I hope it will not arise.

Mr. Speaker

May I point out to the House that both Question No. 87 and Question No. 97 merely ask what were the irregularities? They do not deal with the conduct of the court martial.

Major Legge-Bourke

Further to the reply given to—

Mr. Austin

On a point of Order. If I am not mistaken, Sir, you called my name a moment or two ago.

Mr. Speaker

And I have just called the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).

Major Legge-Bourke

Further to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), may I ask the Secretary of State for War why he says that the irregularities were discovered for the first time only on the arrival of the court-martial proceedings in this country when, in the first statement he made to the House on this matter, he said that the proceedings had already arrived, and were being examined?

Mr. Bellenger

I made a statement then that they had arrived and were being examined.

Mr. Austin

In the light of the facts which have been revealed, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can take it that as a consequence the Deputy Judge Advocate-General in question will no longer be allowed to preside at further courts-martial?

Mr. Bellenger

I prefer first to get a full report.

Major Poole

In view of the concern which may be felt at the fact that there was only one defending officer for all these men, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this was at the request of the men themselves?

Mr. Bellenger

I was not aware of that, but I must say that I think the defence facilities were inadequate. As a matter of interest, the House ought to know that as soon as I came to the War Office, as Financial Secretary, I started inquiries into the whole question of legal aid in suitable cases. Investigations are now proceeding which, I hope, will bear considerable fruit shortly.

Mr. Pickthorn

This is a matter of great importance. Will the Secretary of State now agree that the last supplementary question asked from below the Gangway put beyond all dispute the necessity of making exactly plain what errors this Deputy Judge Advocate-General made?

Mr. Bellenger

I think that it is only necessary to explain, as I have done, what the irregularities were which caused these proceedings to be invalidated. I hope that the House will accept that explanation.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Will my right hon. Friend say what was the age and what were the experience and qualifications of the particular Deputy Judge Advocate who dealt with the Malaya case; and will he also state what action, in general, is taken to see that duly qualified, experienced, and competent persons are chosen for the very responsible duty of Deputy Judge Advocate?

Mr. Bellenger

If my hon. and learned Friend wants that information, I think that he had better put a Question on the Order Paper.