HC Deb 17 July 1957 vol 573 cc1115-7
9. Mr. C. Pannell

asked the Secretary of State for War what action he proposes to take about the case of T/22950644 Driver R. Gibbon, arising from the successful appeals of Lance-Corporal Lonergan and Lance-Corporal Mulley, and the comments of the Lord Chief Justice thereon.

Mr. John Hare

Four soldiers were convicted. Two of them appealed on grounds which were relevant to their cases only. Driver Gibbon and the fourth soldier did not appeal. After careful inquiry, I have decided that I should not intervene.

Mr. Pannell

Is the hon. Member aware that Lance-Corporal Lonergan and Lance-Corporal Mulley were non-commissioned officers, whereas the other two men were drivers? Is he aware that in upholding the appeal of the non-commissioned officers, the Lord Chief Justice said that he would quash the conviction out of hand and that he thought somebody had slipped up here? Is it not a fact, as the House was warned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Holmes) and myself earlier, that the Secretary of State on reflection appreciates that the whole of this business was a piece of victimisation, wrongfully conceived, which has now been contemptuously reviewed by the Lord Chief Justice? In simple justice, will not the right hon. Gentleman do for Driver Gibbon what the Lord Chief Justice did for Lance-Corporals Lonergan and Mulley?

Mr. Hare

I cannot accept what the hon. Member said. The grounds of appeal were personal to these first two men individually, and the court was not referring in any way to the conviction of Driver Gibbon. I must make that absolutely clear. It was Driver Gibbon's own decision not to appeal, as I think the hon. Member knows perfectly well.

Mr. Strachey

Does not the Secretary of State agree that the Lord Chief Justice was obviously speaking of the court-martial as a whole and that Mr. Garth Moore, appearing for the Crown, used the words that there was a great deal in the summing up which he could not seriously defend? That was the summing up of all these cases. Surely the Army would do itself much more credit by putting Driver Gibbon in the same position as that in which the two Lance-Corporals have been placed, because surely at least there is now a very strong presumption that his conviction, too, was a mistaken conviction?

Mr. Hare

I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. These four men were advised by the same counsel. As I understand it, the two who appealed were advised by counsel to do so and the other two were not advised by counsel to do so.

Mr. Speaker

Sir Hugh Linstead.

Mr. Holmes

On a point of order. In view of the fact that this man is one of my constituents, may I ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker

I did not know that at the time.

Mr. Pannell

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and bearing in mind that this is the first successful appeal arising from the provisions of the 1951 Act which the Secretary of State has not faced squarely, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Speaker

No doubt the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Holmes) will have a chance to speak then.