HC Deb 02 May 1957 vol 569 cc466-8

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

Mr. Steele

Having dealt with courts-martial, we now come to what happens after a court-martial has finished its job. Clause 70 deals with the review of finding and sentence. It is a very important Clause, and I have one or two questions to ask about it, because the Admiralty should have some opportunity of explaining how this procedure will work and what the machinery is.

The Bill differs very much from the Army Act or the Air Force Act, as any sentence given under those Acts is subject to confirmation, which is not so under the Bill. That is why we ought to have some explanation about this Clause, as it is very important that the review provisions should be explained by the Admiralty.

8.30 p.m.

There is another point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee. In page 168 of the Report of the evidence given before the Select Committee—Question 841—the following reply was given to the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) by Mr. Montagu: The sailor gets an advantage which the civilian does nod get, that every single case is reviewed.

Those words are included in the Report of the Select Committee, but, unfortunately, there is no provision in the Bill to ensure that that will be done.

Clause 70 (1) says: Any finding of guilty tinder this Part of this Act, and any sentence awarded in respect of such a finding. may be reviewed by the Admiralty at any time…

It is only in the case where trial has been by court-martial that a clear and firm undertaking is given in the Bill that such a review will, in fact, take place.

That is very important because during the whole of the hearing of evidence by the Select Committee and during the course of this debate in Committee it has been admitted that many more trials will take place by summary procedure than by courts-martial. Clause 49 (2), which deals with summary trial, says: This section applies to any offence triable by court-martial under this Act, other than an offence punishable by sentence of death.

Actually, therefore, any offence at all, unless it is punishable by death, can be tried summarily. That being so, it is more than ever important that the machinery for reviewing sentences should be adequate.

I cannot understand why the word "may" is used in Clause 70 (1). Why do the Admiralty say may be reviewed by the Admiralty at any time whereas in the evidence given before the Select Committee and in the Report of that Committee it is quite clearly and emphatically stated that every single case would be reviewed?

These are the two matters on which I should like to have an assurance: first, why the word "may" is used and whether the word can be altered at a later stage; and, secondly, whether the machinery which will be in operation for reviewing cases is sufficiently satisfactory to ensure justice for the accused.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith

The main point about which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) is worried is, I understand, the difference between the word "may" in relation of the review of summary cases and the word "shall" in dealing with cases tried by courts-martial. I will look into the point, but I understand that all summary cases are, in fact, reviewed by the Admiralty.

What happens in a summary case involving detention—if it does not involve detention it is obviously not very serious —is that the case is reported to the local flag officer on a warrant, and it is only when that officer has approved the warrant that it can be enforced. After that, the return is sent in due course to the Admiralty. Of course, it may take a considerable time before a review takes place, and often the punishment has already been suffered. That, of course, is inevitable in any case of summary jurisdiction.

The hon. Gentleman made a comparison between the Army and the Navy. I think that the confirmation to which he is referring applies to courts-martial. That is because in the Army courts-martials are often conducted with a much junior presiding officer than is the case in the Navy. In the Navy, a court-martial case, as the hon. Gentleman stated, automatically goes to the Admiralty for review, which is something which does not apply in civilian courts. Under civil procedure, one first has to appeal, but one does not have to appeal in the case of a sentence awarded by a naval court-martial. The idea is to make certain that the court-martial itself has not made any mistake, and to try to find that out as soon as possible. Therefore, I think I can say that, in fact, a review does take place.

In the case of an offence that is tried by a court-martial, the review takes place immediately. In the case of one tried under summary jurisdiction, we have one sieve through which the case goes, namely, a flag officer has to approve the warrant before it is implemented; and, secondly, a long time afterwards it is reviewed by the Admiralty. Why the word "may" instead of "must" is used I cannot say at the moment, but I shall certainly look into the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 71 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.