HC Deb 15 May 1946 vol 422 cc245-7W
120. Mr. Driberg

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many airmen in India have been detained as a result of the recent R.A.F. strikes; how many have been tried by court martial and how many are awaiting trial; if he has now fully considered the evidence submitted to him by the hon. Member for Maldon and other hon. Members concerning third-degree methods used by the S.I.B. investigators, despite the assurances given by responsible officers that there would be no victimisation of men who returned to duty; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Strachey:

Fourteen airmen who were due for release or repatriation were at first held back in India but only two of them are still being held there: one of these is being tried and the second is awaiting trial. In addition three airmen who are not due for release or repatriation have been placed in arrest. The first of these has already been tried, the second is now being tried and the third is awaiting trial. The above does not include the one airman in Malaya, Aircraftman Cymbalist, who has already been tried.

The complaints which certain hon. Members have brought to my notice about the investigations which were carried out by R.A.F. Service Police fall generally under two heads:

  1. that a breach of faith has been committed in pursuing the investigations at all; it is alleged that promises were made that no further action would be taken, or that there would be no "victimisation" to quote the phrase generally used;
  2. that the methods used by the Special Investigation Branch of the R.A.F. Police were contrary to the regulations and amounted to intimidation.

As regards the suggestion that the investigations should not have been undertaken at all, no statement has been made by the Government or the Air Ministry that no prosecution of ringleaders would follow the outbreaks of indiscipline in India in January, 1946. However, the rules barring the trial by court-martial of a person whose offence has been condoned are very specific; and a number of cases have been abandoned because some C.Os. and other commanders unwittingly made statements which could reasonably be interpreted as meaning that no disciplinary action would be taken if their men resumed duty.

The suggestions that intimidating methods were used fall under the following heads:

  1. that the investigating N.C.Os. concealed their identities or represented themselves to be working for the Foreign Office or Intelligence Service;
  2. that men were placed in arrest without being charged;
  3. that men, when questioned, were threatened and were told that their release and repatriation would be delayed and that they would get up to ten years if they failed to give information.

It was only to be expected in the circumstances that allegations of this nature would be made. The complaints have been carefully sifted and I can give the House the following definite assurances:

  1. that Service Police N.C.Os. invariably disclose their identities before interrogating airmen. The fact that they have always worn the ordinary uniform of R.A.F. Police during this investigation should in itself dispel any suggestion that they misrepresented themselves;
  1. that Section 45 of the Air Force Act requires that a person taken into custody shall be charged and paragraph 1199 of King's Regulations and Air Council Instructions requires that an account of the events alleged shall be delivered in writing to an accused person in custody within 24 hours of the arrest. I am satisfied that there have been no breaches either of the Act or of this regulation;

Police interrogation is always liable to be a somewhat alarming experience to anyone who may be in any way connected with a serious offence. But the N.C.Os. carrying out these particular investigations have categorically denied that they used other than accepted police procedure in questioning witnesses, and no substantiation can be obtained of statements to the contrary. One at least of these N.C.Os. has had long experience in the civil police and all of them are fully conversant with the proper and recognised methods of questioning and were fully aware of the importance of adhering closely to them in this particular investigation.