HC Deb 02 May 1956 vol 552 cc385-6
29. Mrs. Castle

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the nature of the offence for which Chief Mundia was sentenced on 28th February last; why the evidence was heard in camera; and whether it is now intended to rescind his appointment as chief.

Mr. Hare

Chief Mundia pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault. Defence counsel asked that part of the evidence as to character to be offered before sentence should be taken in camera in the public interest. This evidence related to the Chief's part in combating terrorism in his location. The court, acting under powers conferred on it by the Criminal Procedure Code, agreed to hear this small part of the evidence in camera.

On review, the Supreme Court held that in this instance there were no materials before the Resident Magistrate on which to consider whether a prima facie case existed for hearing evidence in camera, but held that that evidence had added nothing material to the case.

In view of his outstanding record of service, it is not intended to rescind Chief Mundia's appointment.

Mrs. Castle

But is not the Minister aware that Chief Mundia was originally charged with causing actual bodily harm, and that then, at the request of the District Commissioner, the court went into camera to hear evidence on which the charge was reduced? In view of the fact that Chief Mundia has been associated with previous breakdowns in the rule of law, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the strange conduct of the case—with which, apparently, the Supreme Court later disagreed—is one more sign that the administration of justice in Kenya is not being carried out on proper lines?

Mr. Hare

I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. It is true that the charge was altered, but that was in view of the trivial nature of the injuries inflicted, and the prosecution decided on that evidence that the charge should be altered. I think it is absolutely unfair for the hon. Lady to make this widespread condemnation on such grounds.

Mrs. Castle

Is it not very unusual for evidence of this kind to be heard in camera? Why was it considered necessary to do so at all? If Chief Mundia is above question, which some of us doubt, why was not that evidence taken in public?

Mr. Hare

Again, I think that the hon. Lady probably did not quite hear the reply which I gave. In the view of the Supreme Court there was not sufficient evidence for this part of the case to be held in camera. The reason that prompted the magistrate to decide that that part should be held in camera was that it dealt with the actual security position in the location in which the Chief was operating.

Captain Waterhouse

Is it not very easy for indignation to be registered in this House by people who do not at all appreciate the conditions existing in that locality?