§ 2.38 p.m.
§ LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOLMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how many British Servicemen since October, 1953, have been handed over to the Japanese authorities for trial upon criminal charges; how many have been convicted upon such charges by Japanese courts and, in each case, what sentence was awarded; whether such prisoners were periodically visited by any British official to whom they could make complaints; what representations were made to the Japanese authorities if the complaints were considered to be well founded; and what arrangements were made for the repatriation of the prisoners when they were released after having served their sentences.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE)My Lords, six United Kingdom Servicemen were tried in Japanese courts in 1954, as a result of two cases of robbery with violence committed against Japanese citizens. Three of the men were tried in March, 1954, and sentenced to 3½, 4 and 5 years penal servitude respectively. The three others were tried in December, 1954, and each was sentenced to 5 years penal servitude—reduced to 4 years on appeal. During their imprisonment these men were regularly visited by British officers, medical officers and officials. Their complaints were recorded and, when considered to be well-founded, were passed on to the Japanese prison authorities, who did their best to meet them. After their release the men were repatriated by the Service authorities to the United Kingdom under normal trooping arrangements before being discharged from the Service in this country.
§ LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOLMy Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his reply. May I ask him one further question? As it was provided in the Japanese Agreement that either side could waive its right of primary jurisdiction, can he tell your Lordships whether there was a provision similar to that in the N.A.T.O. Agreement of June 19, 1951? Perhaps I may remind him of its terms:
The authorities of the State having the primary right shall give sympathetic consideration to a request from the authorities of the other State for a waiver of its right in cases where that other State considers such waiver to be of particular importance.1008 Can the noble Marquess say whether there was a similar arrangement here?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, these men were tried under the terms of the 1954 Agreement regarding the Status of the United Nations Forces in Japan which incorporated the provisions of the Protocol on the Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction over United Nations Forces in Japan. The Japanese authorities did not waive their right, if such a right did exist. I should like notice of that point but, so far as I understand, these cases fell perfectly well within the terms of the Agreement to which I have just referred. But the Japanese authorities definitely did not waive their right.