HC Deb 19 September 1950 vol 478 cc1696-8
17. Mr. Alport

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement regarding the recent courts-martial held in camera at Colchester.

Mr. Strachey

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Members for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) and Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) yesterday.

Sir Herbert Williams

As these replies did not contain any information, can the right hon. Gentleman say why, when a soldier is tried, it is not possible, on grounds of security, to state what was the charge against him?

Mr. Strachey

As the Question was not reached yesterday, I think it would perhaps be better if I read the reply to the original Question. The House may not have seen it, whether the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has or not. I replied yesterday to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds): In this case the specific charges and the evidence adduced to prove them contained information which could not, and still cannot, be made public for reasons of security. Accordingly the specific charges and evidence could not be given in open court and the court was satisfied that, in the interests of justice, the trial, including the arraignment, must therefore be held in camera. The military authorities cannot, of course, themselves decide that a court martial is to be held in camera. This can only be decided by the court itself on a submission to them that certain information essential for the proper trial of the case cannot be made public. I have no doubt that courts martial will continue to decide to sit in camera only with reluctance and if they are convinced that they must do so in the interests of the administration of justice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 184.]

Mr. Dodds

Can my right hon. Friend explain why it was that the charges were so serious, yet the sentences were so light?

Mr. Strachey

In this case it was not a question of the seriousness of the charges. It was a question of the considerations of security which arose, in consideration of the charges, which caused the competent military authority to inform the court that they could not make the charges in open court.

Sir H. Williams

I understand that point with regard to the evidence, but on what grounds of security can it be said that the charges cannot be disclosed? We do not want to have a Russian system here.

Mr. Strachey

There is no relevance in that comparison.

Mr. Wilkes

Would it exercise the legal minds unduly for provision to be made to state the charge in general terms?

Mr. Strachey

In very general terms the charge has been stated—malicious damage to property.

Mr. Wilkes

Not until afterwards.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

Such information as has been given on the nature of the charge was given subsequent to the court-martial proceedings. While everybody appreciates that in certain cases a good deal of the evidence may not be capable of being given with safety in public, surely that does not apply to the nature of the charge itself. Does not the Minister think that in all cases this should be made public?

Mr. Strachey

The security authorities very strongly took the view which I have explained. They can, of course, only take that view and put it before the court. As I said in the original answer, it is for the court to decide whether the case is to be tried in camera or not.