§ Mr. Hardenasked the Secretary of State for War whether it was as a result of consideration of a petition submitted by Mr. H. R. Sandford against the finding and sentence of his court martial in 1934, that the Army Council awarded him retired pay and that four of the five charges were quashed; and why this award was subsequently cancelled.
§ Mr. ShinwellThe four charges were not quashed as the direct result of Mr. Sandford's petition. The Judge Advocate General in his final review of the proceedings recommended that the convictions on four of the charges could not be upheld and should be quashed. Neither was retired pay awarded as the result of consideration of the petition. By Article 533 (at that time 548) of the Royal Warrant a dismissed officer is not precluded from a grant of retired pay if the Army Council are of the opinion that the circumstances of his dismissal do not so preclude him. In the case of Mr. Sandford the Army Council decided that an award of retired pay at the rate of 50 per cent. of the normal should be given to him. The award to Mr. Sandford is still in payment in the form of an Indian Army award. The transfer of responsibility for payment from the War Office to the India Office in 1934 was made for administrative reasons and has no other significance.
§ Mr. Hardenasked the Secretary of State for War whether the King's Regulations in force at the time of Mr. H. R. Sandford's trial by court martial in 1934 provided that when the accused is convicted of two or more charges the sentence should be that which is adequate for the gravest with some addition for each of the remainder.
§ Mr. ShinwellYes.