§ 11. Mr. Haymanasked the Secretary of State for War why his Department in the case of Whitfield versus the War Office at Exeter Assize on 31st October, 1961, withdrew a counter-charge of trespass against Mr. Whitfield and accepted full liability for Mr. Whitfield's son's death on northern Dartmoor.
§ Mr. GodberThe War Office could only agree to settle Mr. Whitfield's claim on the basis that their use of the land where 1222 the accident occurred was lawful. This was not possible until the trial of the action had progressed some way when, after a discussion between counsel on both sides, an agreement was reached which was satisfactory to all the parties concerned. This agreement was to the effect that:
- (a) all allegations against Mr. Whitfield were withdrawn;
- (b) the War Office maintained its right to use the range;
- (c) the agreement had been reached upon the footing that, on the occasion of the accident only, the safety precautions proved insufficient.
§ Mr. HaymanWill the right hon. Gentleman examine the record again, when I think he will find that Mr. Whitfield's counsel made a charge that the byelaws on which the War Office rested their case had lapsed in 1950 and that it was only then that the War Office withdrew the charge? Will he consider again the request for a public inquiry so that all these things can be properly examined in public and so that he can refute the charge that the War Office is seeking to make him a military dictator?
§ Mr. GodberI do not think there is any cause for that. I told the hon. Gentleman last week that the best legal advice I could get on the subject was that the byelaws were still in force. I told him that this was the background of the information which I gave him. I have the details here. It is all very involved, and I do not think it would be right for me to elaborate on it before the House at Question Time.
§ Mr. PagetIf the right hon. Gentleman still maintains that his position in law is right, surely it is very odd that he should have consented to a judgment which was based on precisely the opposite view of the law—that is, that Regulation 52 had ended in 1950 and with it, of course, the byelaw which was made under that Regulation?
§ Mr. GodberAs the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have no legal background, but the advice that I have is that the byelaws in force on 10th December, 1950, were still valid byelaws in force in spite of the expiry in December, 1958, of paragraph 2 of Regulation 52 of the 1223 Defence Regulations. This is the position by virtue of the application of Section 1(3) of the Emergency Laws (Transition of Provision) Act, 1946, and Section 1(3) of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947. That is the advice under which I am operating at the present time.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Paget, for the next Question.