HC Deb 17 February 1955 vol 537 cc670-3
Mr. Ross

I beg to move, in page 121, line 21, after "Act" to insert: "except an offence committed in Scotland."

I want to find out from the Lord Advocate how the jurisdiction of Scottish courts will be affected, and the extent to which he is satisfied that justice will be done in this case. The Secretary of State said earlier that civil courts varied enormously—

Mr. Head

I said that I did not wish in any way to be invidious. I stated that in the very many foreign countries in which the British Army was stationed there was a certain variation in both prisons and courts.

Mr. Ross

That still applies as far as the United Kingdom and the Colonies are concerned.

Mr. Head

I did not say that.

Mr. Ross

No, I am saying it.

In places where Scottish or British soldiers are temporarily engaged in their Army work, it obviously means that for the convenience of the Army the soldier is to be tried by a civil court, and we have not the slightest idea of the competence of that court, nor of its procedure and practice. We should not accept this reduction of the jurisdiction of our own courts without some explanation from the Government.

I am also interested in knowing what this means to a Scottish soldier, or any soldier in Scotland who commits an offence which would be triable by the Scottish court, if the soldier is moved to England, where he will presumably be tried by an English court. The processes are entirely different, and I do not think that it is a great inconvenience to anyone to take a man back to Scotland for trial.

I take as an example the case of a long-distance driver who committed an offence in Yorkshire and who had to go from Kilmarnock to stand trial in Yorkshire. Even different civil courts in England are giving entirely different interpretations of what to fine people for motoring offences, for instance. I had some figures sent to me in a letter. This is very important and relevant to the Amendment, because soldiers can be tried in these courts for offences committed elsewhere.

I can instance a case, to which I have just referred, where the driver was fined £5 and had his licence taken away for a year, which was a considerable punishment for a man employed in driving. But the chief constable, for driving without due care and attention, was fined only £2 in Doncaster, and a chief inspector of Sunderland was fined £4 and disqualified from driving for three months for dangerous driving.

The Deputy-Chairman

This seems to be beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. Ross

It is very pertinent. It deals with the fact that a soldier can be tried in any court—no court is specified—outside the country in which the offence was committed. If the offence is committed in Scotland, a man can be tried in England where the process is entirely different. I think that the matter is one of considerable importance in relation to the jurisdiction of Scottish courts.

There is the question of murder. From my reading of the Bill, a person can commit, or be charged with, murder supposedly committed in Scotland, and might be tried in England where the procedure is entirely different. The differentiation is considerable, and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

The Lord Advocate

There is certainly a point in this Clause. It is the successor of an earlier Section in the previous Act, but it goes a little further. The previous Act was limited to courts of summary jurisdiction, but now there is no limit, and I see that the objection that might be raised to this type of Clause is that it does enable a person to be tried in a court, other than the court of the country where the offence was committed—I am talking about civil offences. That may be necessary in certain limited circumstances, but unless it is necessary, I think it is undesirable.

I have discussed this matter carefully with the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) and the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. A. Woodburn), and I have suggested, and now inform the Committee, that I hope on Report stage to be able to produce a variation and Amendment to Clause 220. If the draftsmen can achieve it, the effect will be to make offences under this Bill—it is only offences under this Bill referred to in Clause 220—committed in Scotland triable only in Scotland and those committed in England triable only in England. That of course applies only if they are tried in civil courts. It has nothing to do with courts-martial.

It will mean that if a civilian or a soldier commits a civil offence in Scotland contrary to Clause 220, and unless he is tried by court-martial, he will be tried in a Scottish civil court. Similarly a soldier or civilian committing such an offence in England will be tried in an English civil court.

Mr. Ross

I am glad to see that, even in England, the Lord Advocate sees the Scottish light.

Mr. Wigg

As an English nationalist, may I congratulate the Lord Advocate on protecting the rights of the English in this matter?

Mr. Ross

On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

This Clause is a little difficult to understand at first glance. As I read Clause 220, it deals only with offences created by Clauses 191 to 196 inclusive. Those are civilian offences created by this Bill. I admit that I have great difficulty in understanding that.

When I first read Clause 220 it seemed to me that the effect was that if a man had committed, say, murder in England and then, owing to military duties had gone to Kenya, he could be tried by a Kenya district magistrate without a jury. I am now satisfied that that interpretation is wrong, but I believe that this Clause is sufficiently difficult to understand for consideration to be given to whether it might be worth while inserting in the fourth line after "offence under this Act," the words under sections 190 to 196 of this Act. Perhaps the Government will consider that before Report stage, because I think it might save a lot of confusion.

Mr. Head

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for his most learned opinion. I must confess that at short notice I am not entirely apprised of the implications of his suggestion. I am not particularly learned in the law, but his hypothetical instance of what might happen is impressive. I can give an undertaking, on behalf of myself and my learned advisers, that we will examine the matter.

Mr. Paget

I should be entirely satisfied with that. There may be nothing in my suggestion, but it might help to clarify the position.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Causes 221 to 224 ordered to stand part of the Bill.