HC Deb 07 February 1968 vol 758 cc562-8

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse (Pontypool)

This debate concerns the fate of two simple men, Phillip Loizeau and Paul Gobine, who, 13 unlucky years ago, found themselves wrongly charged with murder. They were nevertheless adjudicated guilty, were sentenced to death, and suffered months of terrorised agony in the condemned cells of one of the distant islands of the Seychelles, where they lived and where the slaying, the subject matter of the charge, took place.

In that beautiful Indian Ocean tropical island, Mahé, literally a thousand miles from anywhere, at the time of this trial and of subsequent trials which I shall recount, the administration of justice had occasioned such public alarm that a large number of distinguished citizens had, unfortunately with no effect, petitioned the Colonial Secretary to remove the then Chief Justice from the island. This petition, among other matters, alleged that the behaviour of the Chief Justice was a byword and a scandal.

The rejection of that petition led to a Parliamentray debate in this House which was led by yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the late Nye Bevan, who demanded in vain a commission of inquiry into the administration of justice. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, knew nothing, of course, of these trials, but if your demand and that of Nye Bevan had been met the agony of these two men would doubtless have been at least much more limited. But these two hapless men, in these distant islands which are so difficult to supervise by an alert Whitehall, never mind the supine Whitehall of those days, were trapped like flies in a tenuous and tangled web. Fortunately, the eager court which had sentenced them to death had bungled in some important technical detail, and when the men appealed to the East African Court in Nairobi it quashed the convictions and set aside the death sentence.

The Appeal Court did not examine the facts but, on the basis of these technical errors, it declared the trial to be a mistrial and made comments which a less prejudiced police and Bar in the Seychelles would have taken as a broad hint to drop the matter. But, thwarted of their quarry, the police and the local Attorney-General decided to harass these men yet again.

So these wretched men were recharged, now with manslaughter and an affray and, in a careless court, with evidence shockingly suppressed by the police, Loizeau and Gobine were found guilty and received sentences of five years and 12 months respectively. Both these men served those onerous sentences, and if it had not been for two factors I do not doubt that no more would have been heard of the whole squalid matter.

The first and most important was the zeal of a local resident, Mr. Tyndale-Biscoe, who was convinced that the men were innocent and evidently thought that the police and a prosecuting barrister named Thomas —another Thomas —among others, for reasons not hard to guess, had conspired to divert the course of justice and secure the escape of the real culprit at the expense of convicting two innocent men, a conviction which was secured, if necessary, by means of perjured and fabricated evidence obtained by threats and by manipulation of the trials.

Tyndale-Biscoe is doubtless a spiky and awkward man, as crusaders often are. People with a passion for justice are difficult for authorities to contain. But, whatever his faults, he did not lack persistence in his quest to remedy what he has proved to be a great wrong.

The second factor was my visit to the island on a Parliamentary delegation in 1963. Some may doubt the value of hurried visits by such delegations to our remote and diminishing colonial possessions, but this debate proves otherwise. I did not escape the attentions of Mr. Tyndale-Biscoe. I have defended too many murderers to believe easily that, in our courts, men are wrongly convicted, but as I met the tight and ingrown Bar of the Seychelles the misgivings sown by my informants did not diminish: they increased.

As the Minister knows, from my return in 1963 to now, I have harried his Department on these matters. It is to the credit of the Commonwealth Office that, as the evidence and affidavits mounted up, they masked nothing and obviously increasingly shared my misgivings. So, boldly and rightly, in response to my constant demand for an inquiry, they ultimately set up a special court in London manned by distinguished judges who will, in future, be able to have much needed jurisdiction over the courts of the Seychelles, and of other islands in the Commonwealth.

The first case referred to the new court was that of Loizeau and Gobine and, having heard the case with the detachment and objectivity which we treasure in London, the court, more than a decade after the sentences of hanging had been passed, quashed all the later convictions. These two men, who have trembled for many months on the brink of the gallows, who had unjustly been imprisoned and who had carried this stigma for so many years would, I should have thought, after their terrible ordeal, have received, unhesitatingly and speedily, some monetary compensation.

A pardon they cannot have, of course, because their convictions are quashed; but an ex-gratia payment should, out of shame, if not reparation, have been unstintingly given by the Governor and his Executive Council. It is lamentable to think that after 18 months of vacillation it has now been decided that no compensation is to be given. It is even more disgraceful to note that, although the Governor has the power to authorise the disclosure of the proceedings of the Executive Council, no reason whatever has been given why nothing is to be done for these two men.

When in London, the case came before the Court of Appeal. The judges did not need to consider the question whether witnesses had been suborned, for it was quickly conceded that a serious technical wrong had been done to these men by the non-disclosure of inconsistent prosecution witness statements to the defence at the original trial; and, on that basis alone, the judges could quash these convictions. Thus, the appeal did not have to inquire into the allegations before it of misconduct of members of the judiciary, of the police and of the Bar. I trust that no one is shielding or taking advantage of that lack of inquiry.

I realise that many feelings may be bruised in the Seychelles because of the result of this case, and doubtless it is correctly thought that the reorganisation of the C.I.D, the appointment of a new Commissioner of Police and a new Chief Justice were not unconnected with these proceedings. But local prestigious reasons are no excuse for failure to pay compensation and so to leave an innuendo attached to these two men.

I appreciate the difficulties of protocol which may inhibit the new Governor from reversing the last decision of his predecessor, Lord Oxford and Asquith, but even at this stage I urge the Minister to ask Sir Hugh Norman-Walker to think over the matter afresh with his Executive Council. I have with me a document, a copy of another document—I have no reason to doubt its authenticity—which was submitted to the Executive Council by the Attorney-General in 1964. It says: 'Secretary of State's legal adviser, in consultation with the Home Office, after taking all the facts stated into consideration, gave their opinion that these convictions then ought to have been set aside by the grant to both Loizeau and Gobine of free pardons by the Governor. It was not done then and it was not done until the case took place years later. In that document, submitted to the Executive Council by the then Attorney-General in 1964, it was made abundantly clear that if free pardons had been given, it would be necessary for compensation to follow. The fact that that pardon never came into existence and the fact that that did not take place at that time, but that the courts had quashed the sentences, should certainly not mean that these men should not have any compensation. I ask the Minister if the legal opinion of the Secretary of State's advisers has altered since 1964. Is the Secretary of State yielding to local pressures and local prestigious practice?

I hope that the people of the Seychelles will note from this debate and the events which led to it that here at Westminster there are always hon. Members and Ministers who are deeply concerned that justice exists in their little islands. They may be assured that if anyone in the Seychelles abuses his power, trust or position, then here in Westminster we shall continue to question and probe. Out of sight is not out of mind as far as our attitudes are concerned with the Seychelles. We know of their loyalty to Britain. That loyalty deserves to be rewarded by a House of Commons which is ever mindful of their rights and welfare.

11.55 p.m.

Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas)

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has been persistent in pursuing this very difficult case of the two men whose names he has mentioned. I agree entirely with his closing words that the people of the Seychelles are intensely loyal to this country and are entitled to feel that we are loyal to them.

This difficult case has been pursued by my hon. Friend in connection with my noble Friend the Joint Minister of State who serves in another place. I speak in this House for the dependent territories when the Secretary of State does not speak for them, but they are cared for in the Department by my noble Friend. He has written as recently as 1st December to my hon. Friend explaining why he could not give reasons for his refusal of compensation. My hon. Friend has made it quite clear that he is not satisfied with the Minister's letter. The decision not to pay compensation is not that of Her Majesty's Government; it is that of the Government of the Seychelles.

The Governor, taking the advice of his Executive Council, the mouthpiece of the local people, has decided—first Lord Oxford and Asquith was the Governor—against the payment of compensation. Then, when Sir Norman Walker, the present Governor, took up his duties, my right hon. Friend the previous Minister of State, now Minister of Social Security, asked him to undertake a completely new investigation of his own into the evidence and to review the case and see whether he thought that the case needed reopening. The Governor has advised Her Majesty's Government that he shares the opinion of his predecessor.

I understand my hon. Friend wanting to know the reasons, but, as we have explained to him in correspondence, if we were to press the Governor to give his reasons that would be tantamount to a disclosure of the proceedings of the Executive Council. We know by our own Cabinet system that the confidence of the Cabinet—the Executive Council is the equivalent there—is something which is accepted. Members of the Executive Council are on oath not to reveal directly or indirectly the business or proceedings of the Council or the nature or the contents of any document communicated to them or any matter coming to their knowledge in their capacity as members. That is why I cannot confirm tonight the authenticity of the document which my hon. Friend says that he has obtained. Any member of the Executive Council who gave such a document would, of course, have been breaking his oath and have been unworthy of his office. It is true that the oath permits the Governor to authorise disclosure, but it has been made clear to my hon. Friend that this would be countenanced only on the very rarest occasions and for the most exceptional reasons. My noble Friend, in a letter to my hon. Friend, said: Certainly in cases of a judicial nature such as this the Governor does not consider that he could properly authorise disclosure. My noble Friend agreed with the Governor.

It is very difficult, with a Colony which has a form of government, if the Imperial Parliament were to seek to tell the Executive Council and the Governor what they shall do. It would be—I know that my hon. Friend would be the first to say this—a remnant of imperialism if the Government at Westminster were to tell the Governor and the Executive Council of the Seychelles what decision they should reach. I know that long and anxious hours have been spent on this case. I want to underline to the House the fact that the payment of compensation to the two petitioners is entirely a matter to be settled in the Seychelles.

My hon. Friend, in introducing the case, paid tribute to the Appeals Court which met in London. I dispute none of his basic facts about the history of the case, which is a most remarkable case. We have no parallel that I know of in this country. I join my hon. Friend in wel- coming the fact that this Appeals Court has been established. I also rejoice in the fact that a most distinguished Commonwealth judge has now taken up duty as the Chief Justice of the Seychelles. Sir Campbell Wylie is honoured and respected as a shrewd, intelligent and wise man. I believe that his appointment in the Seychelles can do nothing but good. Further, the police force has a new chief officer with considerable experience in the Commonwealth. The police force there has been reorganised. My hon. Friend will know some of the steps which have taken place.

Like my hon. Friend, I have been to the Seychelles. Indeed, it was my privilege to take part in the first Parliamentary delegation that ever left this House for the Seychelles. I was accompanied by Mr. Paul Williams, who is no longer in the House. I know something of the atmosphere of those lovely islands, to which my hon. Friend referred. The decision of Her Majesty's Government has been made clear to my hon. Friend. He has exercised his Parliamentary right to bring the matter before the House tonight, but I can only tell him that my noble Friend finds no reason to ask the Governor of the Seychelles to reconsider his decision further. That is a decision which my noble Friend reached after the most careful and detailed consideration of the issues to which my hon. Friend has referred. We are very limited in what we can do in the House, even with a Colony, once it has an executive council and a governor, as they have in the Seychelles. The fact that both Governors have reached the same conclusion will, I am quite sure, weigh with the House and with those who read the account of this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.