§ 2.36 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government—
- (1) the number of persons arrested in the United Kingdom last year and in the last five years for desertion and absence without leave from the Army, stating the number in each period arrested under Section 74 of the Army Act;
- (2) the date of the last arrest in the United Kingdom, prior to that of Mr. Leslie Parkes, of an alleged deserter or absentee without leave from the Army under Section 74 of the Army Act;
- (3) whether in any case prior to that of Mr. Parkes a person has been arrested under Section 74 of the Army Act after magistrates have refused to hand him over to military custody after his arrest under Section 186 of the Army Act.]
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON)My Lords, in round figures, there were 2,000 Army deserters and absentees arrested last year, including 500 arrested by military police under Section 74 of the Army Act. This proportion was broadly the same over the past five years; and with your Lordships' permission I will publish the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The answer to the second part of the noble and learned Viscount's Question is 844 that arrests under Section 74 are regularly being made, as the figures show, and there was an instance a few days before the arrest of Mr. Parkes.
The answer to the last part of the Question is that no precedents are known under the 1955 Act. Under the corresponding provisions of the 1881 Act we have traced one similar case occurring since the war.
§ Following are the figures referred to by Lord Shackleton:
| Police arresting | |||||
| Military | Civil | ||||
| 1962 | … | … | … | 491 | 1,801 |
| 1963 | … | … | … | 466 | 1,737 |
| 1964 | … | … | … | 412 | 1,534 |
| 1965 | … | … | … | 421 | 1,498 |
| 1966 | … | … | … | 496 | 1,514 |
§ The figures do not include voluntary surrenders.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, thank the noble Lord for the information that he has given, but can he say whether any of the 500 arrests under Section 74 to which he has referred were made with the intention of avoiding bringing the men before the magistrates?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I do not know that I am prepared to accept the implication of the noble and learned Viscount's question.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether instructions are to be given that the military authorities in future will not order the arrest of any soldier who has been discharged by a civil court? Would not my noble friend agree that it is highly undesirable that the military authorities should act contrary to the administration of justice by our civil courts?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, as I have indicated, other than the case I mentioned there are virtually no precedents in recent years for military re-arrest as in the Parkes's case. But my right honourable friend (this was one of the points I promised would be looked into when we debated this matter previously) agrees that this procedure ought not to be used in future, and instructions to that effect are being issued. There may have to be special arrangements in Scotland where circumstances are different.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, while I am not concerned whether or not the noble Lord accepts any implication 845 in the question I put to him, would he be good enough to answer it? I asked him if he could say whether any of the 500 cases of arrests under Section 74 to which he referred were effected with the object of avoiding bringing the man before the magistrates. That is a relevant question. If he cannot answer that, perhaps he can say why the arrests were made under Section 74 and not under Section 186?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am still surprised that the noble and learned Viscount should have framed his question in that particular form. I have already mentioned that this is an exceptional case. Perhaps it might help the noble and learned Viscount if I say that there is a routine which applies in virtually all cases of arrests of deserters, as opposed to this isolated case of re-arrest. A military policeman and a civil constable go together to arrest a suspected deserter or absentee. If he denies that he is a deserter, he must then, under the procedure followed, be arrested by the civil constable and brought before the magistrates. But of course it is quite common for the soldier to admit that he is an absentee, and it is then the practice that he is arrested by the military policeman and sent back to his unit. That is when Section 74 is used, and it explains why it is used so often. It has indeed been sanctified by very high courts.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the further information that he has given—though I should have been grateful had he given it in the original Answer—may I ask him this further question? He referred to this being an isolated case after an arrest—an isolated case of re-arrest. But the noble Lord may remember that on February 22 he said it had happened in a number of cases that Section 74 had been used, even after previous arrest.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I cannot recall that. Certainly there has been one case, and if I was inaccurate in saying that there were a number of cases, I will of course apologise. We have been able to trace only one case; that was the Beach case. There was another case where a man was nearly arrested, and where it was in fact proposed to make an arrest; but the individual himself volunteered to come along to discuss the matter.