HL Deb 29 October 1952 vol 178 cc1071-2

Clause 3, page 3, line 20, leave out ("was committed in the course of") and insert ("arose out of and in the course of his")

Page 3, line 36, at end insert— ("Provided that this subsection shall not apply if at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed the alleged offender was a person not subject to the jurisdiction of the service courts of the country in question in accordance with the last foregoing section.")

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, adopting the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl, I will put the Amendments to Clause 3 together. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I confess that I am a little uneasy about the first Amendment, and I wonder if the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, can help me about this. We are making an alteration. We originally said if the alleged offence committed was committed in the course of duty. We propose to strike out those words and to substitute the words arose out of and in the course of his duty "— therefore adding something, as I understand it. That is to say, it is not enough to say that it "arose in the course of." but must also "arise out of." This Amendment may have been moved by the Opposition in another place—I am afraid that I have not checked it, and I want to know what it means. Could the Lord Chancellor tell us what is the effect of this Amendment, because, after all, we are a revising Chamber, and we should understand what we are doing. I do not intend to object to any of these Amendments. I ask the Lord Chancellor this question: What, in his view, is the effect of this Amendment? We are no longer content to say "in the course of" and we now add the words "arose out of." For the moment I do not realise the sort of case to which that would apply.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think I can help the noble and learned Earl in this. Indeed, I can do so by way of reminder, because when the matter was before this House on a previous occasion it was the noble and learned Earl himself who suggested that it may be an insufficient safeguard to say "in the course of his duty." The noble Earl gave as an example an offence of rape committed by a soldier. It might be suggested that as he was on duty the offence was committed "in the course of his duty." Nobody, I suppose, could suggest that it "arose out of" his duty, and accordingly these words were inserted. I do not think if I may say so with great respect, that the proposition of the noble and learned Earl was a sound one.

EARL JOWITT

Neither do I.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Amendment makes the position abundantly clear. That is why those words have been put in.

On Question, Motion agreed to.