§ Sir W. ALLENasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the court-martial of Lieut.-Colonel Sandford the summary of evidence was taken under the provisions of military law prior to his being claimed by the military authorities for trial under military law and prior to the suspension of proceedings initiated by the military authorities against him in the civil court; and under what provision of military law a civil police officer was present in his official capacity when the summary of evidence was taken?
Mr. COOPERI understand that a summary of evidence was commenced but not concluded by the military authorities on the day prior to that upon which Mr. Sandford was formally charged before a civil court in India, and that the charge before such civil court was not proceeded with on Mr. Sandford being claimed for trial by court-martial under the Army Act. I am not aware if a civil police officer was present in his official capacity at the taking of the summary of evidence, but there would be no legal objection to his presence with the sanction of the military authorities.
§ Sir W. ALLENasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 1603W under the Army Act, Section 53 (1), if a court-martial, after the commencement of the trial is, by death or otherwise, reduced below the legal minimum, it must be dissolved; that during the court-martial in India of Major H. R. Sandford, he was promoted lieut.-colonel and that three officers, junior rank, continued to adjudicate in the case; and why the provisions of Section 53 (1) were not complied with?
Mr. COOPERAs I have already explained in correspondence with my hon. and gallant Friend, there is no provision in the Army Act which requires that the rank of a member of a court-martial should be equal if not superior to that of the accused.
§ Sir W. ALLENasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Lieut.-Colonel Sandford, who was dismissed the service by sentence of a general court-martial, was granted an award of retired pay after the quashing of four out of his five convictions; whether this award of retired pay was made in mitigation of the original sentence, or for what other reason; is he aware that the award of retired pay was subsequently cancelled and replaced by a compassionate allowance granted by the Secretary of State for India in Council; and will he state under what authority this was done?
Mr. COOPERI am aware that Mr. Sandford was granted an award of retired pay after the quashing of four out of his five convictions. This award was not made in mitigation of the original sentence. The case was one for decision by the Army Council under Article 548 of the Royal Warrant for the Pay, etc., of the Army, 1931, and the Army Council considered that to deprive Mr. Sandford entirely of his retired pay, in addition to his dismissal, would have been too severe1604W a punishment. Had Mr. Sandford retired in normal circumstances he would have been eligible for an Indian addition to his British rate of retired pay and the total award would have been administered by the India Office. He was granted an award at half the total rate which would normally have been made. I am aware that the award of retired pay was subsequently cancelled and replaced by a compassionate allowance granted under the authority of the Secretary of State for India in Council.