§ Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will empower the Committee which is about to consider the question of procedure at courts-martial to also consider and report on the procedure at Courts of inquiry, and the desirability of either abolishing such Courts altogether or of giving to a soldier summoned before one the right of substituting trial by court-martial should he prefer it?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI would refer my hon. and learned Friend to paragraph 666 of the King's Regulations and Rule of Procedure 124 for the conditions under which Counts of inquiry are assembled. A Court of inquiry is an assembly of officers whose duty is to assist superior authority in arriving at a correct conclusion on any questions in regard to which full information is desirable, such questions for the most part having no relation to matters which may subsequently form the subject of trial by court-martial. The proceedings of a Court of inquiry, and statements of any kind made thereat, are not admissible as evidence except where an officer or soldier is tried under Section 29 of the Army Act for wilfully giving false evidence before such a Court, and then only when the evidence at the Court of inquiry was taken on oath, a quite exceptional pro-1694W cedure. No officer or soldier is therefore prejudiced by being summoned before a Court of inquiry, and as the Court of inquiry is necessary to enable the superior authority to arrive at a correct conclusion, the question of substituting trial by court-martial can hardly at that stage arise. No useful purpose would in these circumstances be served by referring these matters for the Committee's consideration.