HC Deb 15 February 1949 vol 461 cc939-41
43. Mr. Weitzman

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the case of 2629262 Guardsman J. J. Alcott, and 19, of the Grenadier Guards, tried by General Court Martial at Bielefeld, British Army of Occupation on the Rhine, in January, 1949, on a charge of murder and sentenced to death, no intimation was sent to his next-of-kin of the charge; that his family learned of the charge and conviction from a private source on 7th February; and whether, as the next-of-kin may desire to provide such representation as they think fit at the trial, he will see that information of charges of a serious kind is communicated to the next-of-kin as soon as possible.

Mr. Shinwell

I cannot accept the statement that Mrs. Alcott received the information on 7th February about her son from private sources. In fact the charge, conviction and sentence were communicated to her by the counsel who defended her son, in accordance with arrangements made by the Honorary Chaplain to His Majesty's Forces in Brussels at the request of the Commandant of the Unit at which Guardsman Alcott is being detained pending confirmation or otherwise of the proceedings of trial. I do not agree that a soldier's next-of-kin should automatically be informed when the soldier is to be brought to trial on a serious charge or charges. There is no reason why a soldier should not inform his next-of-kin himself should he wish them to be informed. Guardsman Alcott was granted legal aid and at his request the trial was postponed from 14th December, 1948, until 5th January, 1949, to allow the counsel of his own choice to appear.

Mr. Weitzman

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that apart from offending against every decent principle of humanity by withholding this information, the opportunity of giving proper representation to this soldier was denied? I know that able assistance was given by the Director of the Army Legal Service, but, quite obviously, relatives of a soldier might desire to have representation made by counsel.

Mr. Speaker

That is a statement not a question. The hon. Member cannot make long statements.

Mr. Weitzman

What I desire to know is whether the Minister will see that the soldier has the opportunity, through his next-of-kin being informed at the earliest possible moment, of having the best possible representation?

Mr. Shinwell

In this case, as in all others, legal representation was assured, and no difficulty arises on that account. Guardsman Alcott was provided with adequate legal representation. As regards withholding information from relatives, it is obvious that it would be quite impossible in all cases to inform relatives about allegations made against a particular soldier for the simple reason that the soldier might be proved to be innocent, in which case there is no reason why relatives should be informed.

Mr. Oliver Stanley

Would the right hon. Gentleman make it plain whether there are any obstacles whatever put in the way of the soldier himself communicating with his next-of-kin if he wishes to do so?

Mr. Shinwell

In this particular instance I have made personal inquiries. The soldier was at liberty to communicate with his next-of-kin. It may well be that because of the serious charge alleged against him the soldier did not wish to inform his relatives.

Mr. Weitzman

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in the case of a soldier of 19 years of age a communication ought to be sent to his next-of-kin at the earliest possible moment because, although the soldier may not desire to give the information, it may be in his interest if his next-of-kin were informed so that they could provide adequate representation?

Mr. Shinwell

I think it would be greatly improper, and not necessarily helpful to the soldier, if we were to consult the next-of-kin without consulting the soldier himself. Obviously, if the soldier consented, he would wish to inform his next-of-kin himself.

Mr. Bramall

Would my right hon. Friend make sure that every facility is now given to the mother to see her son.

Mr. Shinwell

There is another Question on the Paper about that.