HC Deb 02 December 1959 vol 614 cc1165-7
19 and 20. Mr. Cooper

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware, with reference to the trial of Lieut.-Colonel H. R. Sandford by general court martial at Quetta, India, in 1934, that the receipt which was the subject of the third charge against the accused was at Quetta, in or about October, 1933, while it was in the possession of the military authorities, shown for identification to Major W. H. Kerr, who immediately identified it as being written in the handwriting of Captain A. N. Youett, and that a few days later Captain Youett explained to Major Kerr why he has signed the name of L. Williams on the receipt; and why Major Kerr was not called as a witness at the trial;

(2) whether he is aware that, during the trial by general court martial at Quetta, India, in 1934, of Lieut.-Colonel H. R. Sandford, counsel for the accused made two written submissions to the court praying that the original record of the proceedings, taken down by the Judge Advocate in court in his own handwriting under the provisions of military law then in force, should be preserved; and whether these two submissions were forwarded to the confirming officer, and are now in the custody of the Judge Advocate General.

Mr. Soames

I must refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which I gave him on 11th November.

Mr. Cooper

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Colonel Sandford has become accustomed over a quarter of a century to the evasion and stone-walling of the Judge Advocate General's Department? Is he aware that I have in my hand the sworn affidavit of Major Kerr which is dealt with in Question No. 19, and that if Major Kerr had been called as a witness his evidence would have been a complete refutation of the charges against Colonel Sandford? Is he aware that I have in my hand a sworn affidavit of Mr. O'Sullivan, barrister-at-law, the defending counsel at the court martial, which states categorically that alterations were made to the record of the court martial?

Mr. Soames

The petitions, appeals and so on connected with this case have gone on for twenty-five years and I was astonished to see the accumulation of paper which had gathered in that time. It is indeed a monument to the patience, care and sense of justice of the machinery of military law. But it is the simple fact that in these voluminous papers there is no sign of the slightest miscarriage of justice in this case. Mr. Sandford was tried and convicted at a court martial at which he decided not to give sworn evidence on his own behalf. There have been many representations made to the Army Council over the past twenty-five years. The question of his sentence has been before the High Court and Court of Appeal, and the matter was ruled against him. What I told the hon. Gentleman last week, and I must tell him again, is that, having examined what has gone before, in my view nothing has come to light in this matter hitherto to suggest that justice was not done by the original findings and sentence confirmed by the Army Council, and I cannot review the case again unless new facts not hitherto presented are brought to light.

Mr. Cooper

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when this case came before the Court of Appeal the Army Council protested that the Court had no jurisdiction and therefore no evidence was taken?

Mr. Soames

I require notice of that supplementary question.

Mr. G. Brown

I have not heard about this matter before, but will the Secretary of State confirm what to me seems a remarkable thing? Were the affidavits referred to by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) considered by the various authorities which decided that there was no case for review?

Mr. Soames

That question is not on the Order Paper and before answering it—these are technical and legal questions—I must have notice.

Mr. Brown

The Secretary of State said that he would not review the case unless new evidence not hitherto considered was brought to light. I am asking him whether these affidavits in his view represent new evidence and, if so, will be consider it?

Mr. Soames

Without examining the considerable files on this subject I cannot say whether they represent new evidence, but if they do, I will examine it.

Mr. Cooper

I put down two specific Questions on the Order Paper, Nos. 19 and 20, and they could not be more precise. My right hon. Friend has made no effort whatsoever to answer them today. All the facts I have given are in the files at the War Office.

Mr. Soames

I told my hon. Friend that I could not again go over evidence already presented and considered, in some cases, numerous times before. Where these Questions are concerned that is so.

Mr. John Hall

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that this case has been going on for twenty-five years is no evidence of the established guilt of Colonel Sandford? May I remind him that the Dreyfus case went on for a long time as well?

Mr. Emrys Hughes

So did the Oscar Slater case.

Mr. Cooper

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.