HC Deb 02 May 1957 vol 569 cc468-72
Mr. W. Wells

I beg to move, in page 30, line 23, to leave out subsection (2).

The Clause on which this Amendment arises deals with a problem which gave us a certain amount of anxiety in the Select Committee, in that where a confession has been signed by a rating that he is guilty of desertion the Admiralty may by order dispense with his trial for that offence and…impose on him any such forfeiture as could be imposed on conviction of that offence under Part I of this Act. We were convinced by the arguments that the Admiralty adduced to the Select Committee that that was a proper provision, and whatever dangers there were—and there were and are dangers—that it will lead to improper promises being made to ratings to sign a confession of desertion in order to be sure that the penalty they get is lighter than they would get on court-martial, we were convinced that it would not, on balance, be a dangerous thing, and that there would be certain advantages.

We feel, however, that the powers that come into being for ordering dispensing with the trial and for imposing any forfeiture on the rating by this summary procedure should be confined to the Admiralty. The Admiralty has resources for advice which are obviously beyond the control and disposition of a flag officer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that in exercising this power, which may lend itself to abuse, it is proper to confine the power to the supreme authority. I hope, also, that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that fact by either accepting the Amendment or agreeing to look into the matter before the Bill reaches the next stage.

Mr. Soames

If I shared the anxiety of the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) on this question, I should certainly give an assurance to look into it further, but, as he appreciates. the object is not to impose a greater punishment upon a man; it is to let him off all punishment. When he is asked to sign this document, it is not to impose a greater punishment. He will not be court-martialled, and probably no punishment will be imposed upon him at all, except forfeiture of pay.

The sort of occasion on which we visualise using this procedure is, for example. when a man, say a junior deserts, is apprehended by the police for some other offence he commits while on desertion, is sent to Borstal, and serves his sentence there. The naval authorities will be informed of the fact that he is in Borstal, and when his sentence has been served he will be picked up, as he leaves the gates of the prison, by a naval patrol. He will then go to the command in which he is serving, which will have been informed that he is in prison.

If the flag officer feels that the best thing to do with the man is to consider that his civil punishment is a full punishment that will cover his desertion as well, and that the man has learned his lesson and will become a good sailor, that man must still forfeit his pay for the time he was away. The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that. That punishment, at any rate, must be imposed upon him. We do not like to do that unless the man signs a document admitting he was a deserter. Therefore, this power is provided in the Bill to enable the flag officer concerned, who, after all, is a very responsible officer, to let that be the punishment.

The man does not suffer by this provision. He gains by it, because he would lose his pay anyway. There is no doubt that he has been a deserter. He signs the statement saying that he deserted and was a deserter; and the punishment will be the forfeiture of his pay, and probably nothing but that.

Mr. Wells

I am afraid that I expressed myself badly. The whole danger here is not in the penalty. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, it is less than that to which the man would be liable if he were tried by court-martial. The danger lies just in that, in the machinery of the confession being used to extort a confession of an offence. if the man were properly advised, as he probably would he if the matter went to court-martial, he would plead "not guilty". An inducement is offered to the man to plead guilty of desertion because he knows that by signing the confession he will not be liable to one of the more severe penalties. It might be that in the context of the case no court would award more severe penalties.

It is because of the dangers implicit in the use of this confession provision, of its being used by people who have a certain know-how and who are dealing with a rating who has not got it, that we ask by this Amendment that the disciplinary authority exercising the powers under the Clause shall be the Admiralty, with its legal resources, and not a flag officer.

Mr. Soames

I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but I really do not think that that is a danger. If I thought it was a danger I should agree with him, but I do not see where the danger is. The hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the danger is that a man would confess that he had been guilty of a crime which he had not committed in order to get a lesser punishment, does he not?

Mr. Wells

That is the main danger, but there is also this possibility. Suppose that I have deserted. I am a young sailor with no knowledge of the law. I am confronted, possibly. by an officer who says to me, "If you will sign this document the worst that will happen to you is this" —whatever the Clause provides. I sign it. It may well have been that if I had gone to court-martial the court would have awarder a less severe penalty than that awarded by the officer who administers the penalty.

In view of the absence of review provisions in such a case which exist where a man has been tried by court-martial, we ask that the penalty should be fixed by the final authority, and that this power should not be delegated to a subordinate authority whose decision will not be reviewed.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Soames

The court-martial would never award less than forfeiture of pay for the time that the man had been absent. It would never award less than would the officer concerned and it is more than likely that it would award more. If a man feels that he is not guilty he will not sign this confession, but will go before a court-martial and see what happens. Equally, if the Admiralty feels that a man needs more severe punishment than forfeiture of pay it will not ask him to sign the confession; and, again, he will have to go before a court-martial.

We do not want to encourage people to desert. We shall not ask people to sign a confession and to forfeit pay for their absence just for fun. We shall do that. perhaps, where the man has already had some form of punishment in a civil court, only where this would give the best chance of enabling the man to mend his ways. He would forfeit his pay, which he would have to do in any case, and would proceed with his service.

I should have thought that that was just the sort of case which should be left to the command, in which the man is known personally; for it is largely a matter of judgment. The man cannot lose by signing the confession, and I do not think there can be any danger of a miscarriage of justice. If he signs the confession he will suffer no more than forfeiture of pay, which he would have had to forfeit had he gone before a court-martial.

Mr. Wells

There is also forfeiture of seniority. That is not likely to be a matter in this case, but it could be awarded under the wording of the Bill.

Mr. Soames

I agree.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 75 to 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.