HC Deb 22 May 1946 vol 423 cc78-9W
38 and 39. Mr. Pritt

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (I) whether he is aware that correspondence to and from L.A.C. Attwood, whilst detained for investigation or awaiting trial in India, was systematically withheld from him, in particular, an express telegram from Drigh Road on 8th March advising him to get in touch with a certain firm of solicitors, which was still undelivered 10 days later; a letter from Karachi on 9th March, kept back until 15th March, and a number of letters written by him on 19th March, kept back for so long that one of them did not reach its destination, the House of Commons, until 3rd May; and if he will see that, in future, such correspondence is not delayed;

(2) whether he is aware that a letter, written on 18th April by L.A.C. Attwood, then in Kalyan Army Detention Barracks awaiting trial by court-martial on Monday, 29th April, to a firm of solicitors in Bombay seeking to arrange for his defence, was held back until Friday, 26th April, and only reached the solicitors on Saturday, 27th April; and whether he will inquire into the matter and deal with the persons responsible for this prejudice to his defence.

Mr. Strachey

Leading Aircraftman Attwood's trial is still proceeding. A plea that trial was barred by condonation of the offence has not been upheld by the confirming authority. I have called for a full report on the delays in this airman's correspondence and will communicate with the hon. and learned Member when my inquiries are complete. I need hardly say that if it was established that his correspondence had been deliberately delayed, I should regard it as a most serious matter. There is, however, no question of Attwood lacking skilled professional assistance. His defence is being conducted by a barrister and two solicitors.

Mr. Driberg

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that 1645929 L.A.C. A. W. Attwood, who was instrumental in preventing mutinous and disorderly behaviour during the recent R.A.F. strikes, is awaiting court-martial on charges of inciting to mutiny; that an express telegram and a letter to this airman advising him on the possibility of legal defence were withheld from him until after he had been questioned about his defence, in the case of the telegram for at least 12 days; and if he will issue instructions that this man is to be allowed to make such arrangements as he wishes for his defence.

Mr. Strachey

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to-day to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt)