§ LORD MORRIS had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Govern-merit whether they consider a severe reprimand an appropriate punishment for an Army Colonel convicted by General Court Martial of, amongst other offences, obtaining money by false pretences from the Corporation of Glasgow; and also move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to keep your Lordships very 50 long if only to show my appreciation of the courtesy of the noble Lord the Parliamentary Under-Secretary who, with his usual consideration, has waited in order to answer me in person. At the same time, I cannot apologize for raising a matter which your Lordships might well think is not without importance. The facts of the matter fall within a very short compass and it will only lake a moment to tell them. A few months ago Colonel Adkins was tried by General Court Martial for committing certain offences, and without going into all the details I may say that one was an offence of obtaining money by false pretences from the Corporation of Glasgow. That, as I need not tell your Lordships, is an extremely serious criminal offence for which people are, every week, sent to penal servitude. Judged by any standard, military or civil, that is a very serious offence and one for which, if the case had been tried by any competent lawyer or group of lawyers, an officer would undoubtedly have been found unfit to hold His Majesty's Commission and have been dismissed the Service or cashiered and possibly sent to prison as well.
§ The reason I have raised the matter is not because of Colonel Adkins—whose case is part of history now and one wants to bury it and forget it—but because of the importance not only that justice should be done but that it should manifestly appear to be done. Here that is riot the case. For the last two or three years I have been engaged in prosecuting officers, both in the Army and the Air Force. Many have been convicted of offences of this kind, but I cannot recall a single case where the officer was not at least dismissed or even cashiered and very often sent to prison as well. What can these officers think when they read the sentence promulgated at Aldershot that Colonel Adkins should be severely reprimanded? No doubt the good Colonel is laughing heartily. I should like to have an assurance, if the noble Lord, Lord Croft, can give it—I do not know the process by which officers are selected for Courts Martial in the Army but I know only too well the process in the Royal Air Force—that officers who sit on Courts Martial are fitted for their jobs. No doubt the judge Advocate advises the Court, but is it not apparent in this case that whatever advice 51 he sought to give regarding sentence was not carried out?
§ It seems to me there can be no excuse when all the Services are full of fully-qualified lawyers if their services are not made use of to serve on Courts Martial to try these very complicated cases. I am quite sure that none of your Lordships would care to have your appendix removed by anyone but a fully qualified surgeon, and I cannot see why Courts Martial should be constituted, as they often are, of officers resting or looking for something to do or for whom it is sought to find a temporary job. That is not good enough. It is absolutely vital that justice should be properly administered and when there are qualified men available to serve on Courts I cannot see why arrangements are not made by the Army Council to ensure that that is done. In this case, if I may say so, the law was brought into ridicule and contempt. This man had committed a grave offence and clearly the men on the Court Martial were not fitted for their job if they came to the conclusion that the proper sentence for obtaining money by false pretences is a reprimand. I beg to move for Papers.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT)My Lords, sentence awarded by a Court Martial is a matter entirely for the Court. A Court Martial is a Court of justice and it is, therefore, essential that its discretion should not be fettered. The Army Council can, and do, take steps to ensure that Courts Martial give due weight to all considerations involved, including the seriousness of an offence and the requirements of discipline. Although in normal circumstances an offence may call for a severe punishment, the circumstances of a particular case may justify a more lenient sentence. If the Court consider that the whole circumstances of the case, including the length and nature of the service of the accused, including perhaps very long service in the ranks, require more lenient sentence than is normal for the offence, it is within their discretion to award such a sentence. Neither the Army Council nor any other reviewing authority has power to increase a sentence awarded by a Court Martial.
My noble friend did not give me notice that he was going to raise a specific point 52 with regard to the composition of Courts Martial and he will forgive me, therefore, if I am unable to add to my remarks on this occasion. But I would like to say that I think that now, when we have had very considerable experience of them, your Lordships will agree that Courts Martial, on the whole, have given very great satisfaction throughout the Services. I would like also just to say that I was not aware that my noble friend was going actually to criticize the decision of the Court. I am not competent to say how far that is justifiable, but I think one must say that, the Court having decided, and since the Army Council clearly cannot increase the sentence, the opening words of the noble Lord were appropriate when he said that this is a matter which is past and that he did not want to say anything more about it.
LORD MORRISMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his reply. His advisers in briefing him are, I think, somewhat confused on the issue. Although, as the noble Lord says, I have addressed my remarks to this particular matter, the issue which it raises, I suggest, is one of far-reaching importance. The noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so, is wrong in suggesting that merely because a man has served for a long time and has otherwise an exemplary record, he may therefore expect, or even get, a reprimand instead of the far more appropriate sentence, which is dismissal from the service of the Crown. The doctrine that a man's excellent record, however excellent it may be, purges his offence, is one which is unknown to English law. The noble Lord will, I am afraid, have to accept that from me, as the noble and learned Lord Chancellor is not at the moment occupying his seat on the Woolsack. I do not want to press the matter any further, but I do suggest to the noble Lord that the War Office, and for that matter the Air Ministry, might very well consider utilizing the services of these lawyers where they are available. They do understand these very serious and weighty matters. I speak from experience for I have, myself, appeared before some of them in my own Service. I think it is right to say that we have formed nearly a dozen standing Courts. There are three or four officers to each Court, and I suppose that the cost to the country is not less than £30,000 to £40,000 a year. I suppose that about 10 per cent.
53 of those sitting on these Courts are lawyers who understand the law. As for the rest, well what most of them know about the law could be written on a gooseberry leaf and covered with a wine glass. That, in my respectful submission, is an undesirable state of affairs.
§ LORD CROFTMy Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his Motion, I would like to add that surely he is not correct in suggesting that even in the civil Courts account is not taken of great length of service in any walk of life and the consistent good character of the accused in the whole of his previous life.
LORD MORRISMy Lords, that of course is so. The Courts do take account of such matters. Obviously I have not made myself clear. If I may be allowed I will do so to this extent. When you are dealing with a case of obtaining money by false pretences, the essence of that is the alleged intent to defraud. It is perfectly obvious that a man who commits an offence involving that ingredient would not, except in most abnormal circumstances, be fit, or be held to be fit, to hold His Majesty's Commission any longer. It is a criminal offence of the utmost gravity.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.