§ Sir W. ALLENasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Major Sandford was ordered to be tried by general court-martial in India, in 1022W January, 1934; that Rule of Procedure 21 (B), made under the Army Act, prescribes certain limitations with regard to the rank of officers qualified to act as members of a general court-martial; that during his trial Major Sandford was gazetted to the rank of lieut.-colonel, and that three officers of junior rank to Lieut.-Colonel Sandford continued to sit as members of the court-martial and adjudicate in the case; and why a new court was not convened and a re-trial ordered?
Mr. COOPERThe Court which tried Mr. Sandford was properly convened in accordance with the Army Act and Rule of Procedure 21 (B). Mr. Sandford was gazetted Lieut.-Colonel during the currency of the trial, but there is no provision in the Army Act which in these circumstances rendered necessary the convening of a new Court or the ordering of a fresh trial.
§ Sir W. ALLENasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Lieut.-Colonel H. R. Sandford in India submitted a petition to the commander-in-chief in India, and was nevertheless convicted by court-martial on all five charges; that he was sentenced to be dismissed the service; that he then petitioned the Army Council, as the result of which four of the five charges were quashed; that the sentence passed by the court-martial was modified in compliance with Rule of Procedure 54 (B); will he state the reasons why the provisions of this rule have not been complied with; and whether, seeing that the convicted and dismissed officer was granted an award of retired pay although the sentence of dismissal from service was not modified, he will state under what regulation this award was made?
Mr. COOPERI am aware that Mr. Sandford was convicted by court-martial in India on two charges of forgery and three charges of uttering forged documents, and was sentenced to be dismissed from His Majesty's service. In the normal course of subsequent review in this country, the Judge-Advocate-General advised that, on technical grounds of law, four of these charges should be set aside, and this was accordingly done. The prescribed authorities took into consideration, as required by Rule of Procedure 54 (B), the question of mitigating the sentence, and decided, in view of all the 1023W circumstances and the gravity of the case, that it would not be just to effect any mitigation. I am aware that petitions, both in India and in this country, have been submitted by Mr. Sandford since his trial, and have been exhaustively considered by the responsible authorities. An award of retired pay was made by the Army Council under Articles 548 of the Royal Warrant for the pay, etc., of the Army, 1931. This award was subsequently replaced by a compassionate allowance made by the Secretary of State for India in Council.
§ Sir W. ALLENasked the Secretary of State for War, in the case of the trial of Colonel Sandford by general court-martial in India, whether a summary of evidence was taken under provisions of military law previous to the accused officer being handed over by the civil authority for trial under military law; if so, whether such procedure is in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Government of India; and will he state the name of the officer by whose order the civil police were requested to register a case under the Indian civil law against the accused officer, the name of the officer who investigated the charges, the name of the officer who ordered a summary of evidence to be taken and subsequently remanded the accused officer for trial by court-martial, the name of the officer who convened the general court-martial, and the name of the officer who, during the period 13th November to 8th December, 1933, carried out the duties which should normally have been performed by the accused's commanding officer?
Mr. COOPERMr. Sandford was not "handed over" by the civil authorities. In the initial stages the case was referred to the civil authorities by Lieutenant-General Sir T. G. Matheson, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, India, as it was considered essential that their assistance should be sought as most of the witnesses were civilians. When the case was registered by the civil authorities, Mr. Sandford was "claimed" for trial by the military authorities in accordance with law, and a summary, of evidence, having been ordered by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, India, was taken by Captain Carey, a staff officer of that command. In due course the charges upon which Mr. Sandford1024W was tried came before the Officer Commanding, 1st Battalion, The Devonshire Regiment, who signed the charge sheet as commanding officer and thereby approved the charges for trial. Mr. Sandford was at that time attached to the 1st Battalion, The Devonshire Regiment. The court was convened by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, India. The commanding officer of Mr. Sandford from the 13th November to the 8th December, 1933, was Brigadier J. C. McKenna, Commander, Zhob Independent Area, India.