Clause 27.—(SAVING FOR PREROGATIVE.) (Hansard, 30 April 1951)

§ The Lord Advocate
I beg to move, in page 15, line 31, to leave out "the making of."
Again, for the convenience of the House, I should like to discuss at the same time the following Amendment. During the Committee stage, the hon. and 955 learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and other hon. Members argued that it would not be sufficiently explicit to provide that the Royal Prerogative is not curtailed until the making of an application for leave to appeal to the Court. There was a great deal of argument as to where we could get a definite terminus beyond which, under the conditions we are contemplating, the Royal Prerogative would no longer be operative.
The proposal now is to make that terminus the time when the application is received by the registrar. This has the virtue of providing a definite period which is capable of being determined. It overcomes the difficulty, which we experienced in Committee, in deciding when the application is made or is determined. I think this is a most satisfactory solution of the difficulties which presented themselves to both sides of the Committee.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for meeting us on this point. The phrase "making of an application" was certainly ambiguous. It could have been argued that a man made his application when he signed the form in making it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman took the view that he did not make it until the case was heard in court. Obviously there should be a great deal of precision about this, because directly the application reaches that particular stage, the power to exercise the Prerogative to quash the conviction ceases. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has now found the proper solution, and we welcome the Amendment.

§ The Lord Advocate
As the House is aware, the purpose of Part I of the Bill is to set up a Courts-Martial Appeal Court broadly on the lines of the Criminal 956 Appeal Acts. This is not in substitution for or derogation of the existing procedure, but provides for yet a further code of procedure under which a person convicted by a court-martial can carry an appeal to a court which is broadly equivalent to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and still further, in certain given circumstances, to the House of Lords.
While this is yet a further and desirable addition to what I will describe as the Service man's Charter, it would be unfitting if I did not remind the House that the existing procedure, which is still a condition precedent to the invocation of the procedure introduced by Part I of the Bill, provides the accused person with an automatic review of his case at different levels, irrespective of whether he himself appeals by way of petition or not, and to that extent he enjoys a benefit not enjoyed by a person convicted in the civil criminal courts. I need not go into the reasons why it was deemed desirable to give this further right to a person convicted by a court-martial, as it is generally accepted on all sides of the House that it should be so, but it is right to say that this new addition results in a comprehensive code under which it may be said that the rights and liberties of Service personnel are safeguarded at all stages.
I do not propose to discuss the Bill, as amended, in detail. It will perhaps suffice to say that the personnel from whose ranks the courts will be constituted I am sure will command approval and respect; that the procedure will be as efficient and practical as it is possible to make it; that the powers of the Court are sufficiently wide to enable substantial justice to be done in all the varying types of cases which come before it; that the financial interests of the appellants are properly safeguarded by the provision of legal aid in appropriate cases and power conferred on the Court to award costs in favour of the accused person, likewise in appropriate cases; and, finally, that where justified an appeal can be taken on the Attorney-General's fiat right to the House of Lords.
The second part of the Bill deals with provisions affecting the offices of the Judge Advocate General, and I do not think these provisions, which were fully accepted in Committee, call for any detailed discussion at this stage.
957 I think I can fairly claim that the Bill, as presented, was a good Bill, but—like most Bills—it has benefited by the detailed examination which it received at its various subsequent stages and it has emerged—like most Bills—a better Bill than it was originally. For this I would like to thank hon. and hon. and learned Members on all sides of the House. I am sure it has been the desire of each and every one of us to look at each point objectively and disinterestedly with a view to achieving the best possible results, and I trust that we have been successful in this connection. I feel that it would be ungrateful if I did not also acknowledge the benefits which have accrued to the Bill from the careful consideration given to it by the officials of the various Departments concerned and by Parliamentary Counsel.
Having paid my acknowledgments to hon. and hon. and learned Members opposite for their contribution, which has been substantial, I should also like to thank my hon. Friends on this side of the House, not only for their contributions, but in some cases for their restraint in allowing this Bill to go through as expeditiously as it has. It is with confidence and with pleasure that I invite the House to give this Bill its Third Reading.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) probably had his memories revived by the words of the Lord Advocate and his mind taken back to the days shortly after 1945 when the Government were subjected to considerable pressure to secure the appointment of the Lewis Committee with a view to going into the whole system of Army and Air Force courts-martial. A long time has elapsed since then. We had the Lewis Committee; we had its report. Then we had the appointment of the Pilcher Committee to deal with the naval side. A great many people did a great deal of work—not only in tendering evidence to those Committees but on the Committees themselves. I know that certainly one of the Committees had to do a great deal of work.
This Bill is really one result of the labours of both those Committees. A long time has elapsed since this revision of court-martial procedure was first set on foot. I say that it is the result of the work of both those Committees because 958 both of them recommended in some form or other the constitution of a court of appeal for accused persons convicted by courts-martial. Of course both Committees made many other recommendations. Effect has already been given to some of these, while no decision has yet been arrived at in regard to others.
My own view is that the recommendation now embodied in this Bill was perhaps the most important and far-reaching of all their recommendations. I repeat that a long time has elapsed, and I fear that a considerable time will still elapse before this Measure comes into operation. Not only has it to reach the Statute Book, as I trust it will, and speedily; rules have also to be made providing for the time-limits within which petitions may be presented and to deal with various other matters. I do not think it will be very easy to draft those rules so that they work satisfactorily in all the varied circumstances under which military, Air Force and naval law has to operate. I hope that they will prove easier to draft than I anticipate.
The Lord Advocate described this Bill as the Service man's charter. I do not think that that is a really correct description.

§ The Lord Advocate
I am sure that the hon. and learned Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I said that it formed part of what would be the Service man's charter.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was part of what would be the Service man's charter, but I am not so sure that that is really a correct description, because I hope that a decreasing number of Service men will require to take advantage of this Measure. At the same time, I am sure it will effect a considerable improvement.
As the Lord Advocate said, there is an automatic review of all convictions, but in spite of that this Bill means not only a big change but also a step forward in securing that courts-martial, which generally operate extremely fairly and always to the best of their ability, will not result, so far as it can possibly be avoided, in a conviction owing to a misinterpretation of the law or owing to some other step in the process going wrong.
We on this side of the House welcome the Bill. It has certainly had a very 959 detailed examination in Committee. I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for the tribute which he paid to the Opposition for the part we have played in seeking to improve the Bill and in seeking to ensure that it will work well. A great many improvements have been made since the Bill was introduced. For my part, I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman and those associated with him for the way in which they have listened to and often acceded to the arguments which we have advanced in an endeavour to secure its improvement.
We can give the Bill its Third Reading with the knowledge that, however good it was when it was introduced, it is certainly a much better Bill now. We can pass it with the hope and in the belief that it will not only lead to an improvement, if improvement there can be, in the administration of justice in the Forces, but also that it will create much greater confidence in that administration, and provide much less ground for the complaints and criticisms, which are sometimes so exaggerated.