§ 4.20 p.m.
§ EARL JOWITTMy Lords, I beg to ask again the second Question of Her Majesty's Government of which I have given private notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make on the Captain Griffiths court-martial?
§ EARL FORTESCUEMy Lords, I am now able to reply to the noble and learned Earl. I would tell your Lordships that I propose to read this document, which is also being read in another place by my right honourable friend The Secretary of State for War. I should also like to inform your Lordships that four copies of the court-martial proceedings will be placed in our Library. This is the statement which my right honourable friend is making:
"I can assure the House that nobody deplores an incident of this kind more than I do, especially since the good name of the British Army is at stake. I would at the start remind the House that the Army has been carrying out difficult operations of this type both in Kenya and Malaya in a way which has won them universal credit among 1187 all races. Nevertheless, I take a very grave view of this incident, and of the fact that the proceedings suggest that there may have been other incidents.
"I have been in close touch with General Erskine since the case of Captain Griffiths first arose. He has already taken special steps to ensure that such a thing will not occur again by issuing a special directive to every officer and obtaining written assurances from all commanders that there are no such things as score boards, monetary rewards or similar practices within units.
"He is determined to probe this matter deeply, and in a signal to me he stated that he conceived it to be his duty to uncover everything and to force into court even the most unpleasant crimes. It should in every way be his aim to clean up rather than to cover up. I have fully confirmed General Erskine's interpretation of his duty. In addition, he himself recommended a court of inquiry and this, in the circumstances, I think is the correct step. I am therefore sending Lieutenant-General Sir Kenneth McLean and a representative of the Army Legal Services by air to Kenya on Saturday next; the third member of the court will be found locally. Their terms of reference will be:
'To inquire into and report upon the allegations which were made at the trial of Captain Griffiths in regard to—General Erskine will forward the proceedings of the court of inquiry, together with his recommendations, to me, and as soon as I have examined them I will, if the House so wishes, make a further report."
- (i) the offering to soldiers of monetary rewards for Mau Mau "kills";
- (ii) the keeping and exhibition of score boards recording official and unofficial "kills" and other activities in operations against Mau Mau;
- (iii) the fostering of a competitive spirit amongst units in regard to "kills" in anti-Mau Mau operations.'
§ 4.24 p.m.
§ EARL JOWITTMy Lords, this is a most important matter, and I should like to ask a few supplementary questions. First, I would say that I entirely agree with the attitude which the right 1188 honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for War is taking. That the Army should feel this matter deeply is plain enough. I should like to suggest, however, that you first have to consider the position of Captain Griffiths. It is a small matter, but it must be borne in mind that at the present time there is the possibility of another charge and court-martial in respect of the other man, because I believe I am right in saying that he was tried only in respect of one of the two. That is hanging over his head. Further, I think I am right in saying that the fact that there has been a court-martial does not prevent a civil court in this country from trying, a man for murder: in other words, it is not autrefois acquit, as the lawyers say. I am inclined to think that it might be necessary for the Government to make up their mind one way or the other as to what is to be the position with regard to Captain Griffiths before they go on with this inquiry. I should like to know whether they have considered that point. No one would want anybody to be put into an embarrassing position while this inquiry goes on. After all, Captain Griffiths is a comparatively small side of this matter.
With regard to the inquiry which is going to be held, is it to be in public, or in private? Being a military inquiry, I assume that it will be in private, but I do not know. If it is to be in private, is that really good enough? Public opinion in this country, and Army opinion in particular, is profoundly disturbed by this matter; and you have to consider public opinion. Is not this a case where some distinguished judge should go out to carry out the investigation? We do not want anybody to be able to say—I am sure it would not be true—that this is a hushed-up affair, the Army inquiring into the conduct of the Army. I suggest that the Government might consider whether this is not a case of such importance, one which has so disturbed public opinion, that the court should be constituted differently and that the proceedings of the court should be public. I should be glad to hear whether those matters can be answered at the present time.
§ EARL FORTESCUEMy Lords, I am able to answer all those questions, I hope, to the satisfaction of the noble and 1189 learned Earl. First, with regard to Captain Griffiths. As the question of whether any further charge should be brought against him is at present under consideration by the legal experts, I am unable to say anything further on that subject. As regards the court of inquiry, that will be held in private. A military court of inquiry is always held in private. It is considered that it is much better to hold a military court of inquiry rather than a public civil one, for the following reasons. A public civil inquiry cannot be set up so quickly, and it would make it extremely difficult to follow up and prosecute in cases where such treatment is deserved. Any soldier giving evidence in open court has to be warned that he may subsequently be prosecuted as a result of his evidence. Civilian evidence, which, as in a military court of inquiry, normally cannot be compelled, is less likely to be freely available. I hope that what I have said satisfies the noble and learned Earl.
§ 4.27 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, before I deal with the matter of the court of inquiry, there is one question I should like to ask. Why, in the matters to be considered by the court of inquiry, is there no mention of what is called "mercy killing"? In the proceedings as reported in The Times there were one or two cases mentioned where officers had wounded prisoners shot in order to put them out of their pain. That is not one of the matters which it would appear will be referred to the court. My second point is this. I would remind the noble Earl that this question of the type of inquiry was considered at some length by the Select Committee on the Army and Air Forces (Annual) Act which reported recently. On page 408 of their proceedings, they say:
We feel that in the rare cases of great public interest and importance, such as have arisen from time to time in the past, where a public inquiry is recognised by the Government to be desirable, an ordinary court of military officers, even if assisted by a legal adviser, will not be thought sufficient to satisfy Parliament and the public, and it will usually be necessary to appoint a High Court Judge or eminent Q.C. as president, with other legal members or civilians of standing and wide experience as members.That is the considered view of the departmental committee, made in a report to this Committee on the Army and Air 1190 Force (Annual) Act. They quoted precedents for this, the most notable of which we all remember; that is to say, the committee of inquiry into the detention barracks case in 1943. That was an inquiry ordered by the Prime Minister into allegations of brutality and Gestapo methods; at the detention barracks. The members of the committee were Mr. Justice Oliver, the Bishop of Reading and Dr. H. E. A. Boldero. I therefore ask the Minister of Defence, if he is going to reply, or the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, whether these matters have been considered. As regards witnesses incriminating themselves, I presume that that is an ordinary matter in court. What the public requires is a clear assurance from Army sources, either that these things did not occur, or that they will not occur again
§ THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS)My Lords, perhaps I might intervene at this stage. Speaking as a military man, I may say that the very unpleasant case with which we are faced concerns the good name of Her Majesty's Forces, and it also concerns officers under military discipline. The object of a military court of inquiry is to inquire into those matters, and I am of the opinion that it is a duty for a military court of inquiry to carry out. I know that the Army are anxious to dig right into this matter, down to its very roots, and to get at the whole truth. I do not believe that any court—and this court is being convened by a first-class General who is determined, as I say, to get to the truth of the whole matter—could do better than this military court of inquiry which Her Majesty's Government propose to set up.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThe noble and gallant Earl overlooked the question about what are called "mercy killings."
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, could the noble and gallant Earl say what is the position of Captain Griffiths to-day? Is he a free man, or is he under some form of military arrest in view of the fact that other charges are pending?
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNISI regret that I cannot answer that question off-hand, but I feel quite certain that he is under arrest, because there may be other proceedings.
§ EARL JOWITTMy Lords, I would point out that it is only fair to Captain Griffiths and fair to everybody that his case should be dealt with before this inquiry, because otherwise I believe it will be embarrassing. I do not doubt for a moment that the Army, of all people, want to get to the bottom of this matter. I accept that, and I accepted it in my original question, because it must be a terrible blow to them. The noble and gallant Earl must think, however, of the effect on public opinion here. Not only must justice be done; must be seen to be done. For that reason, I venture to suggest that he might well consider the desirability of having some distinguished judge, or somebody of that nature, go out with the Lieutenant-General.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, this matter has, of course, been carefully considered. With regard to the first point, about not prejudicing the position of Captain Griffiths, I would say that although one wants this inquiry to take place as rapidly as possible, it would obviously be the duty of the court of inquiry to decide whether they should open this inquiry or deal with any particular point in it before the question of any future proceedings against Captain Griffiths had been settled. That was very much in the minds of those who had to decide this matter, and I can assure the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that that position will not be prejudiced. I am informed that Captain Griffiths is not actually under arrest at the present moment. With regard to the constitution of the court, we have had only one matter in all our minds, and that is, to make the most effective inquiry possible. For the reasons which have been given, the authorities concerned—and I do not mean merely the Army authorities—came to the conclusion that the most effective and most thorough way was to conduct the court of inquiry in this manner. The noble and learned Earl will observe that this is not a case of the local command setting up a local court. A very distinguished Lieutenant-General will be in charge of the inquiry. He will be 1192 assisted on the legal side by a military officer who is also a highly trained legal adviser. In all the circumstances, the noble and learned Earl will probably agree that that is the most effective way in which it can be done.
§ EARL JOWITTI do not doubt for a moment the intention of this distinguished soldier to get to the bottom of this matter. But this court is going to be in private, and my experience over a long time is that if you want to allay public concern, the right way to do it is to turn on the full searchlight of publicity and take it absolutely in public.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, may I have an answer to my question as to whether it is categorically forbidden—as was stated in this evidence—to shoot wounded prisoners?
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONPerhaps the noble Viscount would allow the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War to consider the terms of reference. Those terms are not absolutely final and watertight, and if it should be considered suitable to include another item in the terms of reference of this court of inquiry, that would not be excluded. That point can be taken into consideration.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI hope the noble Viscount will not think that I am pressing this matter too much, but he will remember that this point was made and the case largely depended upon the shooting of two wounded men. The Judge-Advocate of the court expressed the view that what was called "mercy killing" was illegal. I thought that was a satisfactory statement, but I have tried time and time again and I cannot get that statement confirmed by Ministers.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI am advised, so far as the legal question is concerned, that there is no doubt at all as to the law regarding "mercy killing." It is not allowed.
§ EARL JOWITTAnd anybody who does it is guilty of murder. There is no doubt about it.