Clause 129.—(JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS.) (Hansard, 2 May 1957)

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
In spite of the late hour—

§ Mr. Ede
The hon. and gallant Member has not been called to another place.

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
I still say that in spite of the late hour I feel that the Committee should not part with this Clause without dwelling on it for a few moments because, if I understand the Clause correctly, subsection (2) makes one of the most important changes in the existing law which are contained in the Bill. In my judgment, it is a very welcome change.
For practical purposes it does away with what are known as consequential penalties. There are two exceptions. The Admiralty retains the right to withhold the pay of a man during the period in which he is awaiting civil trial or is in prison as a result of civil conviction, and I suggest to the Committee that no one would regard that as unreasonable. Secondly, the Admiralty retains the right to discharge from the Service altogether —and I stress that it is "discharge" and not "dismiss"—a man who has been convicted of a civil offence which would make his retention in the Service inappropriate. Again, no one would question that that is reasonable.
The present system of consequential penalties, however, really authorises the naval authorities, by administrative action, to impose what is, in effect, a second punishment after any conviction in a civil court—a punishment which, under existing regulations, is required to be based upon the amount of discredit brought to the uniform.
I assure the Committee that every kind of device is used on occasions by commanding officers in the interests of the men to mitigate these penalties—devices such as persuading magistrates to hold their courts at an unusual time without 473 giving notice to the Press. It is then argued that there was no discredit because nobody knew anything about it.
At the same time, this system of consequential penalties, which, I believe, was exercised under Prerogative powers—a fact which I never realised when I was serving—has long caused a sense of burning injustice among the ratings who suffered those penalties, and has been, I am assured, a source of great embarrassment to magistrates, who feel that after they have passed sentence, a man will be punished again. I rise only to say how glad I am that after a long struggle in the Committee, the Admiralty and the Government have accepted what is now proposed in the Bill as law.

§ Mr. W. Wells
With my customary shyness and diffidence, I had hoped that the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) would have put the point that I was going to make much more forcibly than I could put it myself. While I entirely echo what the hon. and gallant Member has said, there is one point concerning subsection (1) about which I should like an assurance from the Civil Lord.
Subsection (1) provides, among other things, that Where a person subject to this Act is acquitted or convicted of an offence on trial by a court-martial or disciplinary court… such court shall be debarred from trying him subsequently for the same offence. In paragraph 77 of its Report, the Select Committee, after dealing in a general way with the pleas of "Autrefois Acquit" and "Autrefois Convict", stated: A further point arises. In order that a plea of this kind should be able to succeed, the defendant must be able to produce proof of his previous naval trial. Your Committee were not convinced that, at present, all formal records of this kind are kept sufficiently long for them to be of use in this way. They accordingly recommend that the Admiralty should issue regulations to ensure that such documents are kept safely for as long as they may be needed. My sole purpose is to ask for an assurance from the Civil Lord that that recommendation of the Select Committee in relation to that point will be carried out.

§ Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith
I am afraid that I have been caught off-balance. I do not know whether we keep these records long enough, but I will certainly look into the matter and see that they are kept. Obviously, if they are not kept long enough, the whole of the purpose of the Clause will be lost. I will look into the matter.