HC Deb 30 June 1953 vol 517 cc193-4
33. Mr. Fernyhough

asked the Secretary of State for War what financial loss was suffered by Private John Edward Nicholson in consequence of the court-martial sentence of 28 days' detention which was passed upon him at Chester on 18th May; and whether, in view of the findings of the inquiry into the death in Moston Hall Military Hospital of Private Donald Harrison, he will consider expunging the record in the case of Private Nicholson, grant him his discharge from the Service, and reimburse him for any financial loss he sustained in consequence of the sentence imposed upon him.

34. Mr. Lewis

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the later developments concerning the case of the late Private Donald Harrison, he will arrange to have expunged the record of the court-martial at Chester, on 18th May, of Private John Edward Nicholson.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head)

No, Sir. This was not the right way to bring the facts to light. In any case this man went absent twice and, if his action was solely to draw attention to this case, neither the length of his absence nor its repetition can be justified on these grounds. As a result of his two periods of absence and his subsequent conviction this soldier forfeited £26 5s.

Mr. Fernyhough

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the soldier performed a public duty in bringing to light the inhuman treatment to which his colleague had been subjected, that he need not have done it, and that the matter would never have been brought to light and would never have been known if the soldier had not done what he did? Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that in the circumstances the least the War Office can do is to reimburse the man for the pay he lost while in detention?

Mr. Head

The man could have gone to his G.O.C.-in-C. or, if he had wished, written to his Member of Parliament. Assuming that he wished to do neither of those things and thought that absence without leave was the only way of doing it, all he had to do was to go absent for one day and then demand a court-martial and it would have been his. This does not excuse two periods of absence far in excess of the minimum demanded for a court-martial.